DAVE, C. J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Appellate Tribunal, Agricultural Income-tax Rajasthan under sec. 86 (2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income tax Act, 1953, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act of 1953.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the reference, as mentioned in the statement of case presented by the Tribunal, are that the opposite party Shri Mansingh was Jagirdar of Thikana Meenda of the erstwhile Jodhpur State. He would be referred hereafter as the assessee. THE previous year as declared by the assessee for purposes of agricultural income-tax commenced on the 8th July, 1952, and ended on 26th July, 1953. THE Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act came into force on the 1st April, 1953. Thus, the period of taxable income after the coming into force of the Act was only four months in the present case. THE Agricultural Income-tax Officer Jodhpur computed the total Income of the assessee for the previous year beginning on the 8th July, 1952 and ending on the 26th July, 1953, but rateably assessed the tax for only four months, that is to say, one-third of the total income of the year was assessed as taxable. He also clubbed with the assesse's income the incomes of the assessee's brother Shri Jaisingh, his wife Thakurani Shekhawatji, Uchhab Kanwar and his younger son Gulab Singh. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax Jodhpur, but with no success. Thereupon he filed a second appeal before the Tribunal and he succeeded on both the points. The Additional Commissioner Agricultural Income-tax moved the Tribunal to refer three questions of law, and, therefore, the Tribunal has fourmula-ted the following three questions and referred them to this Court for decision: (1) Whether the income derived from the land assigned to the assessee's brother Jai Singh by his grant-father could not be regarded as irrevocable for the purpose of sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, and should not be excluded from the computation of the total agricultural income of the assessee? (2) Whether the assignments made by the assessee in favour of his wife and younger son are not dispositiotis covered by the 3rd proviso to sec. 22 of the Act? (3) Whether the rate of tax to be applied to the assessee's income for the period commencing on 1-4-53 and ending 26-7-53 should be the rate applicable to the total income of the previous twelve months ending 26-7-53 or should be the rate applicable only to the income for the period 1-4-53 to 26-7-53. To begin with the first question, it is clear from the very frame thereof that the land from which agricultural income was derived was assigned to the assessee's brother Jaisingh by his grand-father and not by the assessee himself. No material has been placed before us to persuade us to take the view that this grant of land in favour of Jaisingh could be revoked by the assessee. On the contrary, it appears from the first schedule of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, (Act No. 40 of 1949) that the Jagir of Meenda was a scheduled jagir within the meaning of sec. 171 (l) (a) of the Act which runs as follows: - "171 (1) (a ). The estates included in the first Schedule to this Act, and any estate which may hereafter be granted under a similar tenure shall be called Scheduled Jagirs. '' Sec. 195 to 197 of the same Act further provided as follows: - "195. The holder of a Scheduled Jagir may assign a part of the Jagir to a lineal male descendant of his own or of the previous holder who does not succeed to the jagir; Provided that the part so assigned shall not be more than what is reasonable, as a provision for his maintenance. " "196. The part so assigned shall continue to be part of the jagir, and the assignee shall be a sub-proprietor. " "197. A sub-proprietor shall be liable to pay to the landlord the land-revenue and other public demands or village cesses and expenses relating to the part of the jagir held by him. " It is obvious from the perusal of sec. 195 that the Act permitted a scheduled Jagirdar to assign a part of his jagir to a lineal male descendant of his own or of the previous holder who did not succeed to the jagir. The assessee's grandfather thus did possess lawful authority to assign a part of his jagir to his grandson, namely, Jaisingh. It is not suggested by anybody if the part of the jagir assigned by the assessee's grand-father to Jaisingh was more than reasonable for Jaisingh's maintenance. The perusal of sec. 196 would further show that according to law, although the part of the jagir assigned under sec. 195 continued to be a part of the jagir, the assignee was given the status of a sub-proprietor. According to this section, the assessee's brother Jaisingh became a sub-proprietor by his grandfather Jaisingh thereafter, according to sec. 197, became liable to pay to the landlord only land revenue and other public demands or village cesses and expenses relating to the part of the jagir held by him. This grant was, therefore, irrevocable so far as the assessee was concerned and the agricultural income derived therefrom could not be included in the income of the assessee. Our reply to question No. 1 therefore is that the income derived from the land assigned to the assessee's brother Jaisingh by his grandfather was irrevocable for the purpose of sec. 22 of the Act of 1953, and it was rightly excluded by the Tribunal from the computation of total agricultural income of the assessee. Next coming to question No. 2 we find from the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal that assignments were made by the assessee in favour of his wife Thakurani Shekhawatji Uchhab Kanwar and in favour of his younger son Shri Gulabsingh on 19th October, 1951, by separate deeds, which were got registered. The assignment in favour of Shri Gulabsingh was covered by see. 195 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act 1949 referred to above. He, therefore, became a sub-proprietor and his position became similar to that of Jaisingh discussed above. It further appears from the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal that this sub-jagir was resumed as a separate unit by the Jagir Commissioner and compensation was paid to Gulabsingh separately. This further shows that the grant in his favour was taken to be irrevocable by the State itself. As regards the assessee's wife, it appears from the Appellate Tribunal's judgment that there was a previous settlement made by the assessee in her favour for her maintenance and it was not revocable during her life-time. It was in lieu of cash maintenance that the grant of land was made in her favour by a registered deed and possession of the land was also transferred to her with effect from Shrawan of Smt. 2004 together with eight wells. It further appears from the same judgment that the income from the transferred land was realised by subletting and accounts were also kept separately by her. In her case also the grant was treated as a sub-jagir by the Jagir Commissioner and resumed as a separate unit. She was paid compensation separate from the assessee. According to sec. 13 of the Act of 1953, if any assets were transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband for adequate consideration, the income derived therefrom could not be clubbed with the; income of the husband. Our answer to question No. 2, therefore, is that the assign-ment made by the assessee in favour of his wife and his younger son were dispositions covered by the third proviso of sec. 22 of the Act of 1953. Now coming to the third question it appears from the statement of the case presented by the Appellate Tribunal that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer computed the total income of the assessee for the previous year beginning from 8th July, 1952, and ending on the 26th July, 1953. It is not disputed that the Act of 1953 itself came into force with effect from the 1st April, 1953, and it could not have retrospective effect. The proviso to sec. 4 of the said Act clearly laid down that the tax at the rate or rates specified in the first schedule shall be charged on the total agricultural income accruing to a parson during the financial year commencing on the 1st April, 1953. This left the position in no doubt, and, in our opinion, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was clearly in error when he took into account the income for the period between the 8th July, 1952, and 31st March, 1953. Our reply to question No. 3, therefore, is that the rate of tax to be applied to the assessee's income for the period commencing on 1st April, 1953, and ending on the 26th July, 1953, should be the rate applicable to the income for the period between the 1st April, 1953, and 26th July, 1953 and not the rate applicable to the total income of the twelve months ending 26-7-53. The reference is answered accordingly. Since the opposite party has not appeared in this Court, the petitioner is left to bear his own costs. . ;