S.C.Manchanda, J. - (1.)THIS is a consolidated case stated under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.)THE material facts are these. The relevant years of assessment are 1368F. 1359F., 1360F., 1361F., and 1362F. Sahu Jagdish Prasad was the Karta of his undivided Hindu family up to the 31st of May, 1951. The joint family owned considerable Zamindari property in the districts of Pilibhit, Barreillv and Bijnore. The family consisted of his wife and his three sons The family had been paying agricultural income tax since the coming into force of the Act in 1948. It paid tax for 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 corresponding to Fasli years 1356-56 and 1357 in the status of a Hindu undivided family. A notice under Section 15(3) of the Act was issued to Sahu Jagdish Prasad as Karta for the relevant years of assessment. Sahu Jagdish Prasad submitted returns of income only in respect of l/4th of the agricultural assets heretofore held by the family. In the assessment for the first of the assessment years 1358 F., corresponding to 1951-52, along with the return, an application was filed stating that a complete oral partition had taken place on 31st of May. 1951, which was subsequently affirmed by a decree of the court of the Civil Judge, Pilibhit dated the 13th of July, 1951, in suit No. 15 of 1961. This suit was filed on 2-6-1951 by one of the sons, Madhava Prasad for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint be declared that they are owned by the plaintiff and the defendants in equal shares. A free translation of the decree granted by the said Civil court on the 13th of July. 1951. would be as follows:--
"It is decreed and ordered that a compromise decree be prepared in terms of paper 1/8 a declaration is given that each one is granted a l/4tb share. Each one is declared to be in separate possession of his share." Though the prayer was for a declaration that the plaintiff's share be declared to be l/4th, the decree was for a declaration of full disruption of the family, each having a l/4th share in terms of the compromise arrived at. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of partition on the grounds, (1) that there was no partition by metes and bounds, (2) that the same manager had continued to work as heretofore, (3) that there was no evidence to prove that the family members were living or messing separately and (4) that the accounts were kept jointly and income was only divided after it had been earned. The assessments for the other relevant assessment years was also made in the status of a Hindu undivided family.

The assessee went up in appeal and the appellate authority relying on a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the plea of partition for all the relevant years of assessment.

(3.)THE State thereupon filed revisions before the Agricultural Income Tax Board The Board reversed the orders of the appellate authority and held that the agricultural property still continued to be joint, that Sahu Jagdish Prasad was managing that property as Karta and therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority In doing so the Board observed:--
"There was however, little evidence to show that this separation had been given effect to on the spot The firm continued to be run jointly as before in 1357 F when there was no talk of partition There was other evidence to show that Sahu Jagdish Prasad and his three sons lived jointly "