GIRIGAMMA Vs. AITO KASARAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE attack that is made as against the order Ext. P-2, made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1960 61, is that the assessing authority has got no jurisdiction in making an assessment as against the entire total income of the four shares owned by the minors in distinct and separate shares and treating them as one single unit for purposes of making the assessment.

(2.) ONE Radhakrishna Punchithaya had five children, one of whom is a major. By a document, dated 30th December 1957 , copy of which has been produced as Ext. P-1 in these proceedings, there was a partition entered into among the father and his major and minor sons, and the properties were allowed in distinct and separate shares according to the Hindu Mitakshara Law.

(3.) THE assessing authority appears to proceed on the basis that the provisions contained in S. 8 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act will enable him to make an assessment on the guardian on behalf of the minors.