Limitation for agricultural income-tax reassessment excludes tenants-in-common; provisos to section 36 did not save the proceedings.

Reassessment notices and assessment orders under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act were held time-barred because they were issued beyond the ordinary limitation period in section 36. The third proviso did not save the proceedings: its reference to "any person" was confined to persons closely connected with or represented in the earlier assessment, such as partners or members of a Hindu undivided family, and did not extend to tenants-in-common who were neither parties to nor represented in the prior proceedings. The second proviso also did not apply because no stay order or pending appeal deferred assessment against the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment notices and assessment orders issued against the petitioners were barred by limitation under section 36 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, and whether the third proviso to that section applied so as to save the proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings were initiated well beyond the ordinary period prescribed by section 36. The third proviso excludes time only where reassessment is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of, or to give effect to, a finding, direction or order under the Act or a court order. The expression "any person" was held to be confined to persons intimately connected with the earlier assessment proceedings and representational categories such as partners or members of a Hindu undivided family. Tenants-in-common do not fall within that class, and an assessment against one tenant-in-common does not bind the others unless they had notice of the earlier proceeding. The petitioners were neither parties to, nor represented in, the prior proceedings against P. C. Pai, and the earlier order could not extend limitation against them. The second proviso, which excludes time during which assessment is deferred because of a stay order or pending appeal, was also inapplicable because no such stay operated against the petitioners.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings against the petitioners were time-barred and were not protected by either proviso to section 36.

---