LAWS(ORI)-1970-12-1

RAMNATH PANDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

Decided On December 17, 1970
RAMNATH PANDA Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS may be stated in short. The petitioner is an assessee under the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XXIV of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act'). In 1947, there was a partition in his family by a registered partition deed whereunder all the properties including agricultural lands were divided amongst himself and his five sons. The petitioner's wife and mother were also given two shares in the partition. Thereafter the petitioner was being assessed on his own income including the income from the lands of his wife and mother every year. After the aforesaid partition, two more sons were born to the petitioner. He effected another registered partition deed dated December 31,1954, between himself and his two minor sons represented by the mother-guardian. In the said partition, lands were divided by metes and bounds. According to the petitioner the minor sons were in separate possessand enjoyment of the lauds falling to their share. While submitting his returns for the assessment year 1955-56 the petitioner excluded the income of the lands allotted to his minor sons. In the ultimate assessment after remand, the assessing officer held that the income of the minor sons from the lands allotted to them separately must constitute a part of the income of the petitioner and Section 11(1) was applicable. The petitioner was unsuccessful both in first appeal and second appeal. He filed an application under Section 29(2) for referring a case to the High Court on the following questions of law arising out of the second appellate order. Those questions were:

(2.) THE Tribunal referred questions Nos. (i) and (iii) but refused to refer question No. (ii). THE assessee filed an application before this court under Section 29(3) of the Act to call for reference on the second question. This court, by its order dated 9th March, 1970, directed the Tribunal to make a reference of the second question. Accordingly the second question has been referred to this court and all the three questions are for consideration in these applications.

(3.) IT would appear from the aforesaid two sections that the expression " holds " has been used in both the sections. In Section 11(1) the expression " for the benefit of " has been used while in Section 12 the corresponding expression is " on behalf of ". At the appropriate place we would examine the significance of these expressions.