1974 (2) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew of Section 11 of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act? We are concerned with nine assessment years between 1958-59 and 1966-67. One Durga Prasad was the karta of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and two sons-Nabin and Abhin. Durga Prasad's wife is Malati. In 1956 by an unregistered deed of partition the properties of the family were separated, but Durga Prasad continued to be holding the share of his wife as also of the minor son Abhin for convenience of possession and enjoyment. Nabin who was an adult son had separated, but Durga Prasad was also looking after the cultivation of his property. 2. The Assessing Officer as also the Appellate Authority came to hold that there was no partition and, therefore, the entire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icultural income tax. 3. In the application made to the Additional Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal the finding regarding partition was disputed and it was contended that even if the fact of partition was conceded for the sake of argument the Assessee could still be liable under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act for the entire income including that of the major son. 4. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority had not accepted the claim of partition. The Additional Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal was, however, prepared to hold relying upon the unregistered deed of partition as also the separate khatians issued in the Bhogra conversion proceedings wherein the said partition was accepted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ised to accept the statement of the case as made and proceed to deal with the matter. 6. The finding as recorded, therefore, goes to show that Durga Prasad and his two sons had partitioned. In the partition one-fourth share in the property was allotted to the wife Malati. Durga Prasad was possessing the property allotted to the shares of Malati and the minor son Abhin. Nabin had his separate share, but Durga Prasad was also in cultivating possession thereof. We are not called upon in the facts of this case to find out whether the Revenue was right in including the shares of Malati and Abhin for determining the income liable for assessment in the hands of Durga Prasad. Therefore we refrain from expressing any opinion on that question. The....