Partner's share of firm profits can count as income tax assessment for disqualification under Act IV of 1938.

A partner whose share of firm profits has been subjected to income tax is treated as having been assessed to income tax for the purpose of the disqualification proviso under Act IV of 1938, even if no separate individual assessment notice was issued and his total income may have fallen below the taxable minimum. The remedy, if any, lies in a refund claim. By contrast, disqualification on the ground of house-tax was not established because the record only showed that houses were gifted to the wife and taxed in her hands, not as the appellant's property. The income-tax disqualification was sufficient to sustain denial of the Act's benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was disqualified from claiming the benefit of Act IV of 1938 on the ground that he had been assessed to income tax within the meaning of section 3 proviso (A); (ii) whether he was disqualified on the ground that he had been assessed to house-tax within the meaning of section 3 proviso (C).

Issue (i): whether the appellant was disqualified from claiming the benefit of Act IV of 1938 on the ground that he had been assessed to income tax within the meaning of section 3 proviso (A).

Analysis: The income of the partnership firm was assessed to tax on its profits, and the appellant was entitled to a one-fourth share in those profits. The assessment of the partnership income was treated as an assessment of the income of the individual partners for the purpose of the proviso. The possibility that the appellant's total income for the year might have fallen below the taxable minimum did not alter the fact that his share had been subjected to income tax, and the remedy, if any, lay in an application for refund under section 48.

Conclusion: The appellant was assessed to income tax within the meaning of section 3 proviso (A) and was not entitled to the benefit of the Act.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant was disqualified on the ground that he had been assessed to house-tax within the meaning of section 3 proviso (C).

Analysis: The material only showed that houses had been gifted to the appellant's wife and that she paid tax on them. There was no proof that the houses had been assessed as the property of the appellant, and the requirement of assessment to house-tax was not established.

Conclusion: The disqualification under section 3 proviso (C) was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant was held not to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of Act IV of 1938, the income-tax disqualification being sufficient to sustain the order.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a disqualification proviso, a partner whose share of firm profits has been subjected to tax is regarded as having been assessed to income tax, even if no individual assessment notice was issued to him.

---