R ANANDAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE tax (revision) cases have been preferred by some of the partners of the firm, Tuttapullam Estate, respectively, under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the common order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras-5, dated June 17, 1988. For the assessment year 1984-85, on applications filed by the petitioners praying for permission to compound the tax payable, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer granted such permission to the petitioners by his orders dated December 31, 1984, January 17, 1985, January 21, 1985, January 25, 1985, March 26, 1985, etc.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax issued a notice dated December 15, 1987, to the petitioners under section 34 of the Act requiring the petitioners to state as to why the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer under section 65(5) of the Act should not be cancelled and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer directed to pass orders under section 17 of the Act apportioning the income among the partners of the firm and subject it to tax accordingly. In that notice, it was pointed out that under section 65(3) of the Act, no registered firm or unregistered firm, treated under section 17(5)(b) of the Act as a registered firm, shall be entitled to apply for permission to compound under that section, but that any partner of such firm may apply for permission for such composition of the agricultural income-tax payable by him on the aggregate of the income derived by him from (a) the land held by him individually and (b) his proportionate share of the land held by the firm, and as the petitioners did not hold any land individually, except the proportionate share of the land held by the firm, permission for compounding the agricultural income-tax payable by the partners had been granted contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, it was proposed to cancel the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and to direct him to pass orders under section 17 of the Act.

(3.) THEREUNDER, no registered firm or unregistered firm treated under section 17(5)(b) of the Act as a registered firm, shall be entitled to apply for permission to compound under that section, but any partner of such firm may apply for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him on the aggregate of the income derived by him from-(a) the land held by him individually and (b) his proportionate share of the land held by the firm. It is unnecessary to notice the rest of the provisions in section 65 of the ActWe may briefly notice the nature of the provision relating to composition of agricultural income-tax liability under section 65 of the Act.