TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rasad was the owner of an extensive area of land. By a deed dated January 21, 1941, he granted a lease for agricultural purposes of 316.3 acres of land to Puran Mal Jaipuria, and by another lease dated April 20, 1942, he granted a lease for agricultural purposes of 326.1 acres of land to M. L. Bagla. For the Fasli years 1356, 1357, 1358 and 1359, the two lessees appointed a common manager for cultivation of the land. The manager maintained a common account of expenditure and income, kept the profits joint and later divided them between the two lessees according to their respective area. In the proceeding for assessment of the income received by the lessees to agricultural income-tax, it was claimed by the two lessees that the income was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipts and expenditure, and the net income was divided, the lands were held by an association of individuals, and the income thereof was liable to be assessed as income of an association of individuals. The High Court examined the argument in three branches. First, whether there was an association of individuals ; secondly, whether the association of individuals held property ; and, thirdly, whether the land was held in any of the capacities mentioned in the definition of the expression " person " in section 2(11) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act. The High Court held on the first branch, that there was an association of persons, on the second, that there was a holding of land by an association of men, and, on the third, that the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common manager to cultivate their lands and derive profits from them. They pooled their lands and got them cultivated as if they belonged to only one of them. The manager made no distinction between one piece of land and another piece of land ; he managed them jointly. Only at the time of distribution of the profits he took into consideration the fact that one owned 316.3 acres and the other 326.1 acres. By pooling their lands together they eliminated the distinction between one holding 316.2 acres and the other holding 326.1 acres ; each allowed the other to hold the land belonging to him. " In our view, these observations of the High Court are not supported by the findings recorded by the Board of Agricultural Income-tax. The only fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
