COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX Vs. SUBRAMANIAN G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question in these sixteen referred cases at the instance of the Department for consideration and answer by this court is as follows :

(2.) THE assessees are partners of Subramaniam Rubber Estates, Punalur. All these eight assessees had formed separate sub-partnership firms with certain other individuals. For the assessment year 1980-81, they had applied for registration under Section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. THE Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Pathanamthitta, rejected the applications for registration of sub-partnership firms and assessed the partners of Subramaniam Rubber Estates on their respective individual share of agricultural income received from the said firm as per eight separate orders dated June 26, 1985. In this context, it is to be noted that both the rejection of the applications for registration and the assessment were by a common order.

(3.) IT is against the specific direction of the Tribunal to the assessing authority to pass separate orders on the application for registration that the Department has come up in reference before this court. We have perused the assessment orders (one such assessment order is at page 14 of the paper book) wherein, we find that though the order is a composite one regarding the determination of income and also disposing of the application for registration that the assessing authority has considered the application for registration in very great depth. The assessee's contention, notwithstanding, is that the order on the application for registration must be a separate one independent of the assessment and it must be communicated separately. The said contention was based on the provisions of Rule 4(2) and rule 7 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951.