Case: Raja Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh of Ayodhya, Dist. Faizabad, U.P Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Assessing Authority) Faizabad

incomes of the previous year of every person. Section 5 provides the mode of determination of agricultural income while Section 6 deals with the computation of agricultural income. 7. An amendment was made in the Act by amending Act XIV of 1953. The amendment reads as under : Whereas doubts have arisen as to the liability of a person to assessment of Agricultural Income Tax under the Principle Act whether such person while owning or holding property in the previous year has ceased to own or hold it subsequently, it is hereby declared that the words owing and holding property in clause (11) of Section 2 of the principal Act shall be deemed never to have required such person to continue to own or hold the property in the year for which the tax is to be charged. 8. Section 3 of the Act referred to above imposes liability on a person for payment of agricultural income-tax and super-tax on his total agricultural income for the previous year. It is not disputed that the income in respect of which the appellant is sought to be assessed under the Act was part of his total agricultural income of the previous year. The point of controversy between the parties is as to whether appellant can be considered to be a person in respect of that income. Person, according to the definition reproduced above, includes an individual owning or holding property for himself. The appellant during the previous years as also the corresponding assessment years in question undoubtedly held property in the shape of agricultural land. As such he answered to the description of person as defined in the Act. The definition does not lend support to the view that an individual would constitute a person in respect of one item of agricultural income in the previous year and would not be a person in respect of other item of agricultural income. Such splitting of the personality of the individual, as defined in the Act, is not warranted by the language of the statute. Once the individual is a person his liability to pay agricultural income-tax and super-tax would arise, subject to other conditions with which we are not concerned, and would extend to the entire total agricultural income derived by him during the previous year. 9. It is significant that the liability of a person to pay agricultural income-tax or super-tax which has been created by the Act is in respect of his total agricultural income for the previous year. There has to be one single integrated assessment for all items of agricultural income, the aggregate of which constitutes total agricultural income. It is not contemplated by the Act that there should be separate assessments in a year for each item of agricultural income derived from different areas of agricultural land. Nor would the fact that the part of the agricultural land, income from which is included in the total agricultural income, was not owned or held by the assessee in the previous year justify its exclusion from the total agricultural income of the previous year, if such income was in fact received by the assessee during that year. 10. The explanation inserted (sic) by the amending Act of 1953 does not, in our opinion, lend any assistance to the appellant. The explanation sought to clarify the doubt which had arisen as to the liability of a person to assessment of agricultural incomes under the Act, in case such a person while owning or holding property in the previous year had subsequently ceased to own or hold that property subsequently. It was declared by the explanation that the words "owning or holding property" in the definition of the person contained in clause (11) of Section 2 of the Act should be deemed never to have required such a person to continue to own or hold the property in the year for which the tax was to be charged. The explanation is an enabling provision and the effect of it is that even if a person ceased to own or hold property in the year for which the tax is to be charged he would still liable provided other conditions are fulfilled. 11. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Manchanda upon the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, C.I.T., Bombay City I (61 ITR 428 : 1966 Supp I SCR 295 : AIR 1967 SC 193 ) with a view to show that liability to pay tax is subject to the provisions of the statute. The above dictum cannot be of much assistance to the appellant in this case because the liability for payment of tax in respect of his total agricultural income which is sought to be fastened upon the appellant is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 12. The Act is a local enactment of which the provisions applied only to Uttar Pradesh. The weight of authorities of Allahabad High Court is against the appellant. Leaving aside the decision in the case of F. P. Sahai v. Dy. Commissioner (Assessing Authority) (1961 ALJ 880) which was affirmed on appeal by Division Bench, we find that three decisions of Division Bench, two decisions of Single Bench and one decision of the Full Bench (which is the subject-matter of the present appeal) have taken the view against that canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The three Division Bench decisions are : 1. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959 ALJ 796) 2 . Raj Laxmi Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Misc. Case (A.I.T.) 299 of 1959 decided on April 22, 1966 (All) 3. Raja Anand Brahmn Shah v. State (Agricultural Income-tax Reference 9 of 1965 connected with Agricultural Income-tax Reference 10 of 1965 decided on January 2, 1969 (All) The two Single Bench decision are : 1. Kishwar Jahan Begam widow of Mohammad Badrul Hasan Khan v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Pilibhit (1955 ALJ 322 2. Radhey Shyam v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer (1955 ALJ 325)

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. The explanation inserted (sic) by the amending Act of 1953 does not, in our opinion, lend any assistance to the appellant. The explanation sought to clarify the doubt which had arisen as to the liability of a person to assessment of agricultural incomes under the Act, in case such a person while owning or holding property in the previous year had subsequently ceased to own or hold that property subsequently. It was declared by the explanation that the words "owning or holding property" in the definition of the person contained in clause (11) of Section 2 of the Act should be deemed never to have required such a person to continue to own or hold the property in the year for which the tax was to be charged. The explanation is an enabling provision and the effect of it is that even if a person ceased to own or hold property in the year for which the tax is to be charged he would still liable provided other conditions are fulfilled11. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Manchanda upon the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, C.I.T., Bombay City I (61 ITR 428   : 1966 Supp I SCR 295 : AIR 1967 SC 193  ) with a view to show that liability to pay tax is subject to the provisions of the statute. The above dictum cannot be of much assistance to the appellant in this case because the liability for payment of tax in respect of his total agricultural income which is sought to be fastened upon the appellant is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.