1987 (5) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the first respondent, had completed the assessments under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (" the Act " for short), on the income from the petitioner's lands, without notice to the petitioner but after treating one M. P. George, the 4th respondent, as the petitioner's agent for purposes of assessment. This, according to the petitioner, is not correct as he had neither employed the 4th respondent nor received any agricultural income at any time through the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had nothing to do with the estate of the petitioner, so states the petitioner. Pursuant to these assessments, copies of which have not been produced along with the original petition, an amount, of Rs. 45,448,70 is being demanded and proceedings unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y between the parties as to whether the estate was being managed by George or Marykutty. While the Department contends, based on statements and disclosures made by George, that it was George who was managing the estate as the agent of the petitioner, the latter contends that it was Marykutty. Apart from this assertion that it was Marykutty who was managing the affairs, no material has been produced to show that she was the person in management. At any rate, the question as to who was in management is a controversial question of fact into which it is not possible to go at this stage. Section 11 of the Act prescribes the procedure for assessment of agricultural income due from lands owned by non-residents. In such cases, the charge may be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... virtue of the fiction created by section 11(1), the agent shall be deemed to be the assessee for purposes of the Act and the amount assessed shall also be recovered only from him and not from the principal, namely, the landowner, the petitioner in this case. What according to me is the effect of section 11(I) is to deem the agent also as an assessee under the Act. This is required to obviate the necessity of having all proceedings taken against the owner, who is abroad, which will cause delay and difficulties in service of notice and in the initiation of proceedings. For these purposes, the law enables the proceedings to be initiated against the agent as if he himself were the assessee under the Act, As the visible local representative of ....