PUTTAMMA Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions the parties are common. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Agrl. ITO, Bangalore, made for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. Though separate orders are made by the Agrl. ITO, the contents of the same are identical.

(2.) THE petitioners are the heirs of K. C. Ramaiah who passed away on June 26, 1971. THEy are his wife and daughters. THE said K. C. Ramaiah left behind him considerable property including agricultural lands. THE petitioners have been assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax, on the basis of the status of individuals even though some of the properties have not been actually divided by metes and bounds. THEy have been treated as having specific shares in the properties. THE petitioners had appointed one K. M. Muniswamappa, the son-in-law of the deceased, K. C. Ramaiah, as the power-of-attorney holder to manage the properties and other affairs pertaining to the petitioners' family and the income derived from agricultural properties was divided among them equally. For the assessment years abovementioned, the Agrl. ITO proposed to assessee them in what is stated as status of "tenants-in-common"; what he intended to do is clear from his order. He made the assessments on K. M. Muniswamappa, the power-of-attorney holder of the petitioners, and on the basis of the entire agricultural properties held by him in his capacity as the power-of-attorney holder and treating the entire income received as the income liable to tax. THE petitioners responded to the notice and filed their objections contending that they had definite and specific shares in the properties and their assessment should be made only in the status of the individuals on the basis of the shares held by them and on the income attributable to their share in the properties. THE also filed an application under s. 67 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and further pleaded that if correct computation is made, there would be no liability to pay any tax.

(3.) SECTION 10(1)(a) provides :