KUMAR TARANAND SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the assessee, Kumar Taranand Sinha, was appointed a receiver of 8 annas Patti Ban Raj by the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur in Partition Suit No. 13 of 1935. This suit was instituted Kumar Krishnanand Sinha against Raja Bahadur Kirtyanand Sinha for partition of certain land properties popularly known as Banaili Raj. It appears that Raja Kirtyanand Sinha died in Janua 1938, and in his place there was substitution of his six sons, Kumar Shyamanand Sinha, Kum Bimalanand Sinha, Kumar Taranand Sinha, Kumar Durganand Sinha, Kumar Jayanand Sinha a Kumar Adyanand Sinha, and also of Srimati Rani Prabhabati Saheba. A preliminary decree partition was granted in the suit by the Subordinate Judge and the share of Kumar Taranand Sin and his five brothers, and his mother, Srimati Rani Prabhabati Saheba, was specified as 8 annas in t whole of Banaili Raj, as representing the branch of Raja Kirtyanand Sinha. In 1946 Kumar Tarana sinha was appointed as the receiver of the 8 annas Patti Banaili Raj. For the accounting year 13 Fasli, the Agrl. ITO, Bhagalpur, issued a notice to the assessee, as the receiver of the 8 annas Pa Banaili Raj to submit a return of Agrl. income. The assessee pointed out that w.e.f. 1st July, 194 there was disruption of the HUF between all the six brothers and they had decided to enjoy th share in severalty w.e.f. that date. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the Agrl. ITO, w taxed the Agrl. IT in the hands of the assessee on the basis of an HUF, but by mistake he calculat both the income -tax and super -tax on the share of each brother separately under S. 13 of the statu The Agrl. ITO later on discovered the mistake and on 26th Dec., 1951, he rectified his previous ord and levied super -tax on the total income in the hands of the assessee and not on the share of ea brother as he had done previously. For the accounting year 1357 Fasli, also the Agrl. ITO, Bhagalp made a similar assessment of the agricultural income in the hands of the assessee on the basis of HUF by his order dated 28th Dec., 1951. The assessee took the matter in appeal to the Dy. Commr. Agrl. IT, but the appeal were dismissed. The assessee also presented revision application before t Board of Revenue, but the revision application were dismissed. Under S. 28(3) of the Bihar Agrl. IT Act the Board of Revenue has stated a case on the follow question of law for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) IT is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant statutory provisions. Sec. 3 of the Bihar Agrl. IT Act (Bihar Act 32 of 1948) states that agricultural income -tax shall charged for each financial year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, this Act on t total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. Sec. 2(m) of the Act defines a "perso to mean any individual, or association of individuals, owning or holding property for himself or for a other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another, either as owner, trustee, receiver, comm manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity recognized by law, and includes an undivid family, firm, or company. Sec. 11 of the Act states as follows :

(3.) THE Attorney -General also referred to another letter dated 19th Sept., 1948, written by Kum Shyamanand Sinha, the Karta of the HUF, to the receiver of the 8 annas Banaili Raj, stating that sin the Hindu joint family had become separated from 1st July, 1948, separate accounts for each of t group of co -sharers should be maintained by the receiver and a three monthly return of income a expenditure of his share should be separately sent to him. This letter is printed at page 87 of t paper -book and reads as follows :