Appeal No449 of 1958
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 7 1956 of the Patna High Court in Misc
Judicial Case No 604 of 1953
406 D P Singh for the appellant
section P Varma for the respondent
January 11
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J
The High Court of Judicature at Patna answered in the affirmative the following question which was submitted by the Board of Agricultural Income tax Bihar under section 283 of the Bihar Agricultural Income tax Act XXXII of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner could be legally assessed for the income of the Estate in 1355 Fasli when the Estate was in the hand of the Receiver   With special leave under article 136 of the Constitution this appeal is preferred against the order of the High Court
The appellant is the Mahant of the Asthal Estate Salauna in the District of Bhagalpur in Bihar
In a suit concerning that estate a Court Receiver was appointed by the First Class Subordinate Judge Monghyr to manage the estate
The Receiver functioned till sometime in December 1949 and under the order of the Subordinate Judge he handed over charge of the estate to the appellant on January 8 1950
On January 15 1950 the appellant submitted a return of income of the estate to the Agricultural Income tax Officer Monghyr for the Fasli year 1355 corresponding to September 16 1948 to September 15 1949
The Agricultural Income tax Officer assessed on August 7 1950 the agricultural income of the estate at Rs 90507 2 6 and ordered the appellant to pay Rs 20290 13 0 as agricultural income tax
Appeals against the order of assessment preferred to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and the Board of Agricultural Income tax Bihar were unsuccessful
The Board however referred the question set out hereinbefore to the High Court under section 283 of the Act as arising out of its order
The only question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellant was liable to be assessed to pay agricultural income tax for the year 407 in which the estate was in the management of the Court Receiver
Section 3 of the Act which is the charging section provides  Agricultural income tax shall be charged for each financial year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person
 By section 4it is provided Save as hereinafter provided this Act shall apply to all agricultural income derived from land situated in the State of Bihar
 The income of the estate of the appellant was not exempt from payment of tax and by virtue of section 3 agricultural income tax was charged upon the income for the assessment year in question and the appellant was prima facie liable as owner of the estate to pay tax on that income
The appellant however relied upon section 13 of the Act which provides  Where any person holds land from which agricultural income is derived as a common manager appointed under any law for the time being in force or under any agreement or as receiver administrator or the like on behalf of persons jointly interested in such land or in the agricultural income derived therefrom the aggregate of the sums payable as agricultural income tax by each person on the agricultural income derived from such land and received by him shall be assessed on such common manager receiver administrator or the like and he shall be deemed to be the assessee in respect of the agricultural income tax so payable by each such person and shall be liable to pay the same
 The appellant urged that if the land from which agricultural income is derived is held by a Receiver and the income is received by the Receiver the Receiver alone can by virtue of section 13 be deemed to be the assessee and the Receiver alone is liable to pay the tax in respect of that income
In support of his contention the appellant relies upon the definition of the word
  person  in s 2 cl
m which estates 408 Person  mean any individual or association of individuals owning or holding property for himself or for any other or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner trustee receiver common manager administrator or executor or in any capacity recognised by law and includes an undivided Hindu family firm or company
 In our view there is no substance in the contention raised by the appellant
The liability to pay tax is charged on the agricultural income of every person
The income though collected by the Receiver was the income of the appellant
By section 13 in addition to the owner the Receiver is to be deemed to be an assessee
But the fact that the Receiver may because he held the property from which income was derived in the year of account be deemed to be an assessee and liable to pay tax does not absolve the appellant on whose behalf the income was received from the obligation to pay agricultural income tax
Section 13 merely provides a machinery for recovery of tax and is not a charging section
When property is in the possession of the Receiver common manager or administrator the taxing authorities may but are not bound to treat such persons as assessees and recover tax
The taxing authorities may always proceed against the owner of the income and assess the tax against him
The definition in the connotation of person  undoubtedly included a receiver trustee common manager administrator or executor and by such inclusion it is open to the taxing authorities to assess tax against any such persons but on that account the income in the hand of the owner is not exempt from liability to assessment of tax
Counsel for the appellant urged that the income received by the appellant from the Receiver did not retain its character of agricultural income and therefore also the appellant was not liable to pay agricultural income tax
But this contention was never raised before the taxing authorities and no such question has been referred to this court
The character of the income was accepted to be agricultural 409 income in the hands of the appellant and the only question which was sought to be referred and raised before the Board of Agricultural Income tax was one as to the liability of the appellant to be assessed to agricultural income tax for the year in question
In that view of the case the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
On principles of equity justice and good conscience which apply to the Punjab where the  is not in force if one of several joint mortgagors redeems the entire Mortgage by paying a s less than the full amount due under the mortgage he is entitled to receive from his co mortgagors only their proportionate shares on the amount actually paid by him
He is not entitled to claim their proportionate shares on the amount which was due to the mortgagee under the terms of the mortgage on the date of redemption
Hodgson vs Shaw   Digambar Das vs Harendra Narayan Panday 1910 and Suryanarayana vs Sriramulu 1913 referred to
Judgment of the High Court of Punjab at Simla affirmed