GADADHAR RAMANUJ DAS Vs. COLLECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 29 (3), Orissa Agricultural Income -tax Act for a direction to the Member, Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, to state a case and refer the same to this Court. It arises under the following circumstances : The applicant has been assessed to agricultural income -tax for the year 1948 -49 as an individual. Notice was issued in respect of assessment for the year 1949 -50 also on the same basis. A return of income appears to have been submitted by him as an individual admitting an income of nearly three lakhs. But at the time of the actual assessment by the agricultural income -tax officer, he claimed, a deduction in respect of about Rs. 87,000/ - under Section 8, Agricultural Income -tax Act on the ground that he held certain of the properties whose income had been included in the return as trustee for the deity Lord Jagannatha of Puri, as Amrutmanohi. In support of his claim for deduction, he produced an order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments. Orissa, declaring that the said properties are held under a public trust and also produced certain papers showing payment of contribution by the assessee to the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Board. It appeared however that the assessee has filed a suit O. S. 12/47 in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Puri, challenging the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments and contending that the properties are either secular or private debottar. That litigation is said to be still pending. In view of the emergence of this fact from the evidence of the assessee's agent, the income -tax officer, while admitting the assessee to the benefit of Section 8 of the Act for an income of Rs. 70,000/ - made it conditional on his foregoing the deduction, then tentatively allowed by him under Section 8, if in future the order of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Endowments is set aside and the properties are held by the civil Court to be secular or private debottar. The assessee having filed a written declaration undertaking to the above effect, the deduction was allowed by the agricultural Income -tax officer. When the assessment came up in appeal by the assessee to the Collector of Agricultural Income -tax, in respect of certain other matters, which were decided against him by the agricultural income -tax officer, the Collector was of the opinion that the course adopted by the income -tax officer so far as this deduction was concerned, was not permissible. He accordingly issued notice to the assessee in respect of this matter also, and after hearing him, set aside the order of the agricultural income -tax officer. He directed him to make a fresh assessment according to law as indicated by him in his order. The Collector was of the opinion, as appears from his order, that the question of exemption under Section 8 on the footing of the properties being a public trust, would arise only when the assessee makes a positive declaration to the effect that the institution is a public trust. He added that if such a declaration is made, it was open to the agricultural income -tax officer to examine the question in all its aspects and arrive at a proper finding treating the order of the Endowment Commissioner as a piece of evidence. He was also of the opinion that the statement filed by the assessee before the agricultural income -tax officer to the effect that in case the subordinate Judge in the pending suit holds the properties to be secular or private debottar, he would forego the deduction allowed under Section 8, was not any such absolute declaration which called for an examination by the agricultural income -tax officer of the question whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 8 of the Act. It is not expressly stated in the Collector's order that on remand it was open to the assessee to file such a declaration without prejudice to his contentions in the regular suit and that on such a declaration being filed it was open to the Agricultural Income -tax Officer to examine the question of exemption under Section 8 afresh.

(2.) AS against the above order of the Collector, the assessee filed a Revision No. 17 of 1951 -52 before the Revenue Commissioner. The Revenue Commissioner while upholding the order of the Collector stated as follows :

(3.) IT is next urged that the orders of the Collector of Agricultural Income -tax on appeal and that of the Revenue Commissioner in revision preclude his claiming the exemption under Section 8, on a fresh statement filed by him and that their decisions are tantamount to the finding, that the assessee not having made any such unequivocal declaration for agricultural income -tax purposes is not entitled to claim any such exemption hereafter, during the pendency of the civil litigation. There appears to be room for this apprehension arising out of the language of the Revenue Commissioner's order in revision already quoted above. But the operative portion of his order is as follows :