G GURUMURTHY NAIDU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four tax revision cases arising under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, are dealt with in common since they involve one and the same assessee and the points raised also are common except some additional point in respect of Tax Cases Nos. 127 and 128 of 1982. The assessment years concerned are 1974-75 to 1977-78 Having regard to the nature of the submissions made and the consideration required, it is not necessary for us to reproduce the facts in respect of the respective assessment years.

(2.) THE revision petitioner has been assessed to agricultural income-tax by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kumbakonam, separately for all these years treating the assessee as an individual. THE Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax initiated suo motu revisional proceedings and issued a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the orders already made should not be revised. THE assessee, while submitting his explanation, claimed that he had inherited lands from his father and they should be treated as properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family and should not be clubbed with his holdings, and that there should be separate assessment orders also in respect of the Hindu undivided family in respect of the lands which he got by way of partition from his father and the other in his individual capacity in respect of the land which he inherited from his uncle. That apart, the assessee also challenged the proposal to revise the orders in respect of the basis of the quantum of income arrived at. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner passed final orders whereunder he held that the status of the assessee came to be determined as an individual at his request and on his own action of clubbing both the lands together as his individual lands on earlier occasions and that there was no justification to countenance the plea now made to the contrary in respect of the years which were under consideration before the revising authority. Liberty was given to the assessee to take up the issue with the assessing authority by producing sufficient material for future years in respect of his status. So far as the quantum of income is concerned, the revisional authority set aside the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after conducting a detailed enquiry as to the actual income realised by the assessee during the years in question. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up by way of revisionAs far as the question of status is concerned, the assessee reiterated the same plea as made before the Commissioner contending that, in respect of the lands he acquired from his father under a partition, they have to be assessed only in his capacity as Hindu undivided family and there should be a separate assessment in his capacity as an individual in respect of the properties he inherited from his uncle and his other private properties. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), reiterated the reasoning of the revisional authority and contended that, since the petitioner himself has clubbed both the properties and was subjecting himself by submitting returns as an individual there was no justification for resiling from the said stand and the conclusions of the revisional authority are not only in accordance with law but do not call for any interference in the above revisionsWe are not persuaded to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue. It is not in dispute that the apex court, on more than one occasion, has held that, for purposes of taxation and determination of the status of a person as a Hindu undivided family, it is not necessary that there should be more than one male member and the relevant criterion is to see how the properties have been obtained by the assessee concerned.