Assessment of co-owned agricultural income must follow each tenant-in-common's share, not the pooled property income.

Agricultural income held by heirs as tenants-in-common, and managed through a power-of-attorney holder, had to be assessed with reference to each co-owner's defined share. Section 3(3) required tax on the income of each tenant-in-common, while Section 10(1)(a) allowed assessment through a manager only in the same manner and to the same amount as would apply to the beneficiary. Treating the entire pooled agricultural income as one assessable unit was ? no. The assessing authority erred in doing so, and the assessment orders were quashed; reconsideration of composition was permitted on the basis of each petitioner's individual share.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the case of heirs holding agricultural property as tenants-in-common and managed by a power-of-attorney holder, the tax and composition could be assessed on the entire agricultural income of the properties as one unit, or had to be confined to the individual shares of the co-owners.

Analysis: Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 requires tax in the case of tenants-in-common to be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. Section 10(1)(a) permits assessment on a manager, receiver or similar person appointed by or under law, but only in the like manner and to the same amount as would be leviable on the person on whose behalf the income is receivable. On the facts, the petitioners had defined shares, the income was managed on their behalf, and the authorities were therefore required to assess the income by combining the effect of these provisions rather than treating the entire agricultural income as belonging to one assessable unit. The assessing authority erred in proceeding on the basis of the whole income of all lands managed by the power-of-attorney holder.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were unsustainable and were quashed. The authority was permitted to reconsider the composition application on the basis of the individual share of each petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Agricultural income of co-owners with defined shares, when managed by an appointed representative, must be assessed with reference to each person's share and not on the entire pooled income of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: Where agricultural property is held in defined shares and managed by an authorised manager, assessment must be made on the individual share of each co-owner by applying the provisions governing tenants-in-common and managerial receipt together.

---