BHAGIRATHI BAI AND SHANTHA BAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise under the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act and have been filed challenging the order of the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. passed under S. 35 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957.

(2.) BHAGIRATHI Bai (petitioner in C.R.P. 1225 of 1977) is the mother of Shantha Bai J. Nayak, the petitioner in C.R.P. 1232 of 1977. These two persons were assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1975-76 in the status of individuals. The order of the Commissioner which is impugned in these petitions is a common one. It has been stated therein that BHAGIRATHI Bai had been held to be non-assessable under S. 19(3) of the Act. This is incorrect. It transpires that for an earlier year the Commissioner had taken action under S. 35 and come to a conclusion that V.P. Shanbhogue and Vasudeva P. Shanbhogue who are brothers, BHAGIRATHI Bai their mother and Shantha Bai their sister constituted an association of persons and in respect of the lands held by them, they were liable for agricultural income-tax as an association of persons and had made an order to that effect on November 26, 1975. Assessment, in the instant case, by the assessing authority had been made on July 30, 1975. Apparently, following his earlier order dated November 26, 1975, the Commissioner issued notice to revise the assessment for this assessment year also. The petitioners filed their objections contending that the land with regard to which they had submitted their returns belonged to them and there was no association of persons and the proposal to revise the assessment was untenable. The Commissioner, however, overruled the objections and directed the assessment to be made in the status of an association of four persons above named as one unit.

(3.) THE facts that the properties stood in the individual names, and for the purpose of carrying on the agricultural operations purchases of manure were made separately and supplies of sugarcane and areca had been made separately and accounts had been maintained in the individual names, were circumstances indubitably indicating a course of conduct showing the real intention of the parties that the activities were as individuals and militated against an inference of their being an association of persons.