Composition relief under agricultural income-tax cannot be denied for lack of individual landholding where partner's firm share is included.

Section 65(3) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 allows composition based on aggregated land holdings as an alternative to regular assessment. The Madras HC noted that, for registered firms and unregistered firms treated as registered, tax liability under the pre-amendment scheme rested on partners in respect of their total agricultural income, including firm shares. It held that the provision requires inclusion of a partner's individual holdings and share in the firm's holdings where both exist, but does not add a separate condition that the partner must independently own land before applying for composition. An unstated precondition cannot be read into the statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partner of a registered firm, or of an unregistered firm treated as registered, who does not hold land individually, is disentitled from applying for composition of agricultural income-tax under section 65(3) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.

Analysis: Section 65 provides for a concessional composition scheme based on the extent of land holding and operates as an alternative to regular assessment. Under the pre-amendment scheme, registered firms and unregistered firms treated as registered were not themselves liable to pay tax; the liability was on the partners in respect of their total agricultural income, including their share in the firm. The aggregation language in section 65(3) requires inclusion of the partner's individual holdings and share in the firm's holdings where both exist, but it does not impose a further condition that the partner must independently hold land before seeking composition. Reading such a requirement into the provision would add words not found in the statute and would defeat the purpose of the composition scheme.

Conclusion: The absence of individual landholding does not disentitle such a partner from applying for composition under section 65(3); the contrary view was overruled.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing provision granting composition on aggregated holdings cannot be restricted by importing an unstated precondition of independent individual landholding, and the statutory benefit extends to a qualifying partner even where his only holding is his share in the firm's land.

---