LAWS(MAD)-1971-9-17

BALASUBRAMANIAM M Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On September 23, 1971
M. BALASUBRAMANIAM Appellant
V/S
AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the village munsif of Koottathupatti in Salem District. He claims that on March 24, 1960, there was a partition of the family properties between himself and his minor sons, as also the mother of the petitioner and the brother's widow of the petitioner. THE family property was admittedly subject to agricultural income-tax. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1963-64. Notwithstanding the alleged partition as above, the assessee was filing applications for composition for the prior assessment years including the entire extent of the family properties without noticing the partition, or giving effect to it. But, for the year 1963-64, he filed an application for composition under Section 65 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, stating that there was a partition between himself and his minor sons and others and by reason of such partition, the composition he was seeking for was to be limited to his aliquot share of the family properties. THE Agricultural Income-tax Officer, when he was confronted with such an application for composition, found that the petitioner gave incomplete particulars in the application as they were far different from the particulars given in the previous assessment years. After scrutinising the partition deed, he was of the view that no convincing reason was given as to how a self-acquired property could be the subject-matter of a partition between a father and his sons and, therefore, he issued a show cause memo, to the petitioner as to why his application for composition should not be rejected and why the petitioner should not file the returns in the usual form under Section 16(2) of the Act.

(2.) AS against this proposal of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, the petitioner filed a revision petition to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax as provided under the Act, but without success. The Commissioner, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, found, as a fact, that the partition deed dated March 24, 1960, recited that the minors, who were also parties to the document and entitled to the benefits thereunder, were not given immediate separate possession of the properties, but they were enti'tled to get such possession only after they attained majority. After noticing the recital as above, and finding that the assessee himself did not rest his case for the previous assessment years on the alleged partition deed, the Commissioner found that no case of separate enjoyment of the family properties was made out and in the absence of the same, the application for composition in the manner submitted could not be entertained and so no order was passed under Section 65 of the Act. It is as against this the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) FOR all these reasons, I am unable to say that the order of the second respondent is without jurisdiction or contains an error apparent or an error of law therein. The rule nisi is discharged. The writ, petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.