Revisional power cannot replace escaped-income reassessment, and partition fiction does not cover coffee crop already disposed of.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act cannot be used where no assessment exists in the hands of the person properly chargeable; in such a situation, the appropriate course is reassessment of escaped income. The statutory fiction in section 30(2) and its Explanation applies only to crop harvested but not disposed of before partition and cannot be extended beyond its express limits. Coffee crop supplied to the Coffee Board before partition was treated as already disposed of, so later back pool payments could not sustain assessment in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, when no assessment had been made in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family and the case, if any, fell within the sphere of reassessment of escaped income. (ii) Whether the coffee back pool payments relating to crop harvested and supplied to the Coffee Board before partition could be brought within section 30(2) and its Explanation so as to sustain assessment in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, when no assessment had been made in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family and the case, if any, fell within the sphere of reassessment of escaped income.

Analysis: Revisional power is confined to correcting an existing assessment order that is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Where income has been assessed in the hands of the wrong person, but no assessment exists at all in the hands of the person properly chargeable, the appropriate course is reassessment of escaped income under the statutory provision dealing with escaped assessment, not revision under section 35. The revisional authority cannot trench upon powers reserved to the assessing authority for reassessment.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 35 was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the coffee back pool payments relating to crop harvested and supplied to the Coffee Board before partition could be brought within section 30(2) and its Explanation so as to sustain assessment in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: Section 30(2) and its Explanation operate on income from crop harvested but not disposed of before partition, and the statutory fiction cannot be extended beyond its limited scope. Coffee crop supplied to the Coffee Board stands disposed of when the grower's rights are extinguished and the crop vests in the Board. Since the crop had been harvested and disposed of before partition, the Explanation did not apply, and the later receipt of back pool payment could not revive assessment in the hands of the disrupted family.

Conclusion: Section 30(2) and its Explanation had no application, and the assessment on the erstwhile Hindu undivided family could not be upheld on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable in law, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to assess escaped income in the absence of an assessment order in the hands of the person sought to be revised, and a statutory fiction dealing with undivided family income after partition applies only within its express limits and cannot be extended to crop already disposed of before partition.

---