4 C I a 4 C’ 1% 4 I a I. * p (‘C a — n •.‘4 * Ii I flu, I 4 ,IM. • I. ‘( %4 I 4 C • . E 10 .4 C c I tt ) I LI) 1’ a 4 I.e II r I ‘C p ‘ .m 4 1 “ * e c • 1 * • 4 • I. ft fl I t C C C p p ,• t I 0. • I a I C I fl, •4’sD 4 a 0 P • • a. 4 St tn Ii 1 4 •1f( I C • •l J)L C I I I c a • ‘S L £1 I. 4 4 %‘P II e 4. 4’ a a 0 R Zi S ft ‘his petitinn is ffleca t., rvvise the order dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Adcil. Co:irnissi.oner ef Correrejal Vexe, cre Zote, ::Snrs, in DL.CC’. S:cY. for the assessnent year 1932—83, whLc is .&r<eã 2. The facts of the case are, that the Dealer tøs iiled return of income in the status of Tenants— n_Co::Qnn for the assenrnt y€r 19..2—,3. The notice under Section 20 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income— tax ACt wes isr’d cn 10.5.1934 treLtin. th€ sti of the assesse s association : :ersns einc przs& to levy tax. k is contended by the assessee that his statt.s has to ?: tr.t .r’ t4nnt_in_cot-r-d,1 only anc the same wg rejected and he was treated as association of persons and against that 0 Apreal is file3. The ?;;:€11et? •utority êiifl ‘. t!: ;rre1 nJ r aarie the natter to the Resnden with a direction to assess the :jeI1aflt ir:alvithnil::. -ç: .i-Q Do’ jnjjr t .3. 4’ —3— Con ercei ‘;t.Xcs whiiji e;ercisir. .vvisi:.n’l Power under Section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural iflCo —tax ;ct, ?j..r iazueci notic? staLing th- t;-’a order of tie Appellate Authority is not correct and t:nr cnsi3ar Ln th2 oh’ect lens :ase2 en or:ier sett ing aside the order under Appeal and directed the Assessing 2:ut it to 1•wy tS:: tc 3 rjcultural Thcoc—tx -in the Income of Rs.44,233/— as one unit, considering status iq Ten:nco.cn. ;-tj;,st thW, t- 1 c- ..‘r :9ttyijnn petition is filed. 3. ‘erneá tounsl or ttG t,etit inner cnntn1ec that, the individuels are co—owners f he rir,perty therefore they heinc ter,:r 1 tsaLn—co-’-•.Dn, t•€ arzsesrpent ought t- have been made on eech indivi’3ua’. inste :Q 01 tre.t,an. tSr:nt3jnCe %V o’ DSS:i— ciation of per ions, or: the oth’r hind, learned Governs ra:nt ;.iVoC.te C2n.rr.isC tt tT9 tennts_in_c’y.:.:n Whi..h were earlier in the definitIon of persors ‘was onitted’ ;±rc t’-i. foe, thc s•:rw: c.::nnot 1,6 ne sv.iia:e to be taxed taking them as individuals, fly readinq Sub— Section 2 o? Secti’n 2 tN e 1 efin ior’ oE’cron’, . .4 2: “e-sson” rweens any individual or association of individuals, owing or mmlean; orcrort 2 for salt er fot any other, or partly forhis own benefit and i.artly for another either as owner, trustee, receiver, common manager, admini strator or executor or in any cap.acity recognise.d by law, and includes an undivided Hindu Mitakshara family, an Aliyasanthana family or branch, a Harumakka— ttayexj.. tarwad or a tavazhi possessing separate properties, or a Nambudr or othe.r f:amily to which t.he rule of impartibility applies, a firm or company, an a.ssociation of .individuals, whether incorpora.te or not, and any instItution capable of holding property,” Therefore, the benefit of levy of tax on the shares of each is not avallable, Therefore, the status of tenants—in—common continues to be that of Association of Persons, Therefore, making assessment of: the pet.i— tioner as associatIon of persons is not unlawful or illegal and it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act 3, eaane 1 Ccansei for toe Pttt 0 er ontreo that, while wk exercising t-he iower uaner Section 35 oh the said Act, tf Rav.isional Authority Cdx)r)Ot go rtc tan rerss of tan cass ana cecane tOt sean rammd the scooe of Soc 35 of the ct. The score of Section 35 is already decided by tf is Court in number ot cases .and held that wherever there is erroneous v.iew of the , , 6 , I b ae6e appellate authority which causes loss to the Revenue and method of assessment is not proper, the Revisional Authority cn exercise suo motu Revision. In view of the said circumstances, we do not see any merits in this Petition. Accordingly, this Revision 2 etition is dismissed. Sd! JUDGE Sd! JUDGE Msk*