PREMHARI BARMAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case stated by the Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 63 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The questions of law propounded by and referred to this Court are as follows:

(2.) The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated as follows: One Bepar Chandra Barman died in 1947 leaving five sons amongst whom Maniram Barman (since deceased) was the eldest. These five sons inherited the property left by their father. After the death of Bepar Chandra Barman, Maniram Barman used to be assessed as an individual. But in respect of the three yeas of assessment under consideration, namely, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 he was assessed as a 'Karta' of the Hindu undivided Family. The objection of the assessee was refused, up to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) It is admitted that the assessee is governed by the Daya Bhaga school of Hindu law and his case was that after the death of their father in the month of Agrahayan, 1354 BS the five brothers partitioned the joint property and since then they possessed their respective properties separately in separate sahams after effecting a partition by metes and bounds. At that time, no specific document or deed was executed and registered by the parties and the partition, it appears, was effected orally and by amicable arrangement. Six years thereafter on 3rd February 1954 the five brothers executed a regular deed of partition in terms of the arrangement arrived at in Agrahayan, 1354. BS and registered the same. It was, however, specifically mentioned therein that the actual partition was effected and put into operation in Agrahayan, 1354 BS. This deed of partition was placed before the Agricultural Income-tax authorities and it was contended that the Undivided Hindu Family was disrupted from 1948 (Agrahayan 1354 BS) and, as such, the assessee Bepar Chandra Barman was entitled to be assessed as an individual, the Revenue Officers beginning from the Agricultural Income-tax Officer upto the Appellate Tribunal maintained that this deed of partition was not relevant for the period prior to the year of execution of the document. The Tribunal observed: "There is no satisfactory material before us from which it can be held that there had actually been an oral partition of the joint property by metes and bounds at any time before the deed of partition of 1360 BS. For the purpose of our present enquiry, the deed of partition does not appear to be quite relevant. This is because it was made after the assessment years relating to these appeals."