V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) These are four references under the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act by the Board of Agricultural Income Tax for four different assessment years. In all these cases two questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court. Those two questions are : (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of Malikana received by the assessee from the Government is agricultural income as defined in Sec. 2 (1) (a) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act. (2) Whether the assessee is a 'person as defined in Sec. 2 (11) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act.
(2.) The facts which are necessary for deciding these references may be put very briefly. It appears that the assessee in all these cases is the successor of one Babu Ausan Singh who received a Jagir of Pargana Seyedpur Bhittary from Raja Chet Singh of Banaras some time in the 18th century. About the end of that century, some dispute arose between the Jagirdars and the Zamindars and these were ultimately settled by the British Government by issuing a notification dated 19th October 1837. Under that notification, the predecessor-in-interest of the assessee was divested of all rights and interest in the land situated in Pargana Seyedpur Bhittary Instead he was granted a right to one-fourth of the net collections of land revenue of this Pargana after deducting Tahsil expenses. The income which is the subject-matter of these four references is the income payable to the assessee under that settlement. It has varied from year to year. The first question arose because it was contended before the Agricultural Income Tax authorities by the assessee that the in-come received by the assessee was not agricultural income and was, therefore, not liable to Agricultural Income Tax. When these references came Ina before ut, however, Mr. G. N. Kunzru who represented the assessee gave a statement that, in these references he did not press his objection that this income was not agricultural income. On the other hand, he in fact contended that it was agricultural income. This position was also accepted by learned Senior Standing Counsel who represented the State. Further, this question was considered by us in a reference under the Income Tax Act, being Income Tax Reference No. 307 of 1957 where some of the income in question in those present references was sought to be taxed under the Indian Income Tax Act on the basis that it was not agricultural income. We have today decided that reference and held that this income was agricultural income and was not income liable to tax under the Indian Income Tax Act. In these circumstances, for the reasons which we have given in our order in the Income Tax Reference No. 307 of 1957 and for the further reason that learned counsel for both parties are agreed that this income is agricultural income, we answer the first question in the affirmative.
(3.) So far as the second question concerned, the basis on which it has been urged by learned counsel for the assessee before us is that, after the settlement of July 1837, the assessee no longer had any interest in the land from which this agricultural income was derived and consequently it should be held that he was not a 'person' within the meaning given to it in the definition of word 'person' contained in Sec. 2 (11) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act. The records of these references, however, show that the assessee had in each of these years of assessment certain agricultural land in his possession from which he was deriving income. That land was held by him in one or more of the capacities mentioned in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. As long as the assessee in all these years under assessment was owning or holding agricultural property for himself, it is clear that he satisfied the requirements for being a 'person' in accordance with the definition contained in the Act. The contention that was raised before us by the learned counsel for the department was that the capacity of the assessee as a 'person' should be considered for the purposes of the Agricultural Income Tax Act not with reference to all property owned or held by him but should be restricted to examining the position with reference to the property from which the agricultural income sought to be taxed as Agricultural income Tax was derived. It was urged that the assessee was not holding or owning any part of that property from which this agricultural income received by him under the settlement was being derived and consequently he was not a 'person' qua this income. There are two reasons why we consider that this submission cannot be accepted. The first reason is that the question referred by the Agricultural Income Tax Board to us has not been framed so as to cover the point now being urged by learned counsel. The question merely is whether the assessee is a 'person' as defined in Sec. 2 (11) of the U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, and as long as the facts show that he does own or hold property for himself as an individual the question cannot be answered in any other manner except in the affirmative. The second reason is that, in our opinion, when considering the question whether the assessee is a 'person' within the meaning of that word as defined in Sec. 2 (11) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act it is not at all necessary that the capacity of the assessee as a person must be established with reference to each item of the agricultural income sought to be taxed. The plain language of the Agricultural Income Tax Act nowhere takes into account the capacity of the assessee qua any particular agricultural income. The definition of the word 'person' does not require that the assessee must be holding or owning that very property from which the income accrues. The other sections of the Income Tax Act also nowhere lay down that only that came lyrist be subjected to Agricultural Income Tax which is derived from land owned or held by the assessee. All that is required under the Act is that the assessee must be a 'person' inasmuch as he himself owns or holds property as an individual for himself and secondly he must be receiving income which satisfies the definition of agricultural income. In the present case, as we have said above, there is no, dispute that the assessee is holding agricultural property which is yielding agricultural income to him so that he is a 'person' and further we have already held in answer to the first question that this income which is being subjected to Agricultural Income Tax is agricultural income. In these circumstances the second question must also be answered in the affirmative. The assessee will be liable to pay Rs. 51/- as costs in each these references to the department. Questions answered.;