JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a consolidated case stated under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE material facts are these. The relevant years of assessment are 1368F. 1359F., 1360F., 1361F., and 1362F. Sahu Jagdish Prasad was the Karta of his undivided Hindu family up to the 31st of May, 1951. The joint family owned considerable Zamindari property in the districts of Pilibhit, Barreillv and Bijnore. The family consisted of his wife and his three sons The family had been paying agricultural income tax since the coming into force of the Act in 1948. It paid tax for 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 corresponding to Fasli years 1356-56 and 1357 in the status of a Hindu undivided family. A notice under Section 15(3) of the Act was issued to Sahu Jagdish Prasad as Karta for the relevant years of assessment. Sahu Jagdish Prasad submitted returns of income only in respect of l/4th of the agricultural assets heretofore held by the family. In the assessment for the first of the assessment years 1358 F., corresponding to 1951-52, along with the return, an application was filed stating that a complete oral partition had taken place on 31st of May. 1951, which was subsequently affirmed by a decree of the court of the Civil Judge, Pilibhit dated the 13th of July, 1951, in suit No. 15 of 1961. This suit was filed on 2-6-1951 by one of the sons, Madhava Prasad for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint be declared that they are owned by the plaintiff and the defendants in equal shares. A free translation of the decree granted by the said Civil court on the 13th of July. 1951. would be as follows:--

(3.) THE State thereupon filed revisions before the Agricultural Income Tax Board The Board reversed the orders of the appellate authority and held that the agricultural property still continued to be joint, that Sahu Jagdish Prasad was managing that property as Karta and therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority In doing so the Board observed:--