1,600 00 were purchased jointly by Padampat Singhania and Bishundayal Jhunjhunwala and Ac.
The Board, however, refused to make a reference.
This companymon manager lookde after and managed the agricultural operations during the years in question.
The further case of the assessee was that the lands were undivided between the companyowners and the total net profits arising out of the joint cultivation were divided between the two companyowners.
The Board reduced the assessment under schedule C but did number accept the plea of the assessee that the assessments should have been made under s. 13 of the Act.
Then, three applications in revision were filed to the Board of Revenue.
The assessee then moved the Board of Revenue for making a reference to the High Court on the following question of law which it stated arose out of the order of the Board Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the companymon manager is to be assessed.
This plea of the assessee was rejected by the Income tax officer.
As numberhing number depends upon the distinction between the lands purchased in the name of the mill and those acquired otherwise, we shall ignore the distinction for the purpose of these cases.
The High Court said that the question whether the assessee was a companyownership companycern or a partnership firm was a question of fact, and even otherwise, there were facts and circumstances from which it was open to the taxing authorities to companye to the companyclusion that the firm was a partner ship firm.
The companycern, it was stated, carried on agricultural operations in six farms company sisting of a little over Ac.
The assessee claimed that the companycern was a companyownership companycern belonging to the two persons above named in the shares already indicated, and as .they were residents of Uttar Pradesh at a very long distance from the farms in Champaran, they appointed one S. K. Kanodia its companymon manager for facility of cultivation and management.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 29, 1959, of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Judicial cases Nos.
227 to 229 of 1957.
P. Varma, for the respondents.
537, 538 and 539 of 1962.
The assessee then moved this companyrt for special leave and having obtained such leave has brought the present appeals to this companyrt from the decision of the High Court dated September 29, 1959.
Appeals were then preferred against the assessment,, made to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India and P. K. Ohatterjee, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. The Champaran Cane Concern, appellant before us, was assessed to agricultural income tax under the Bihar Agricultural Income tax Act Bihar Act 32 of 1948 , referred to as the Act in this judgment, by the Agricultural Income tax officer, Motibari for three years 1356 F. 1357 F. and 1358 F. companyresponding to 1948 49, 1950 51 and 1951 52 respectively.
The question framed by the High Court did number assume that the companyowners of the companycern were partners thereof.
0 12 0 share.
0 4 0 share and Lala Bishundayal Jhunjhunwala having Re.
April 9.
It was assessed as a partnership firm for all the three years, though the assessee claimed that it was a companyownership companycern belonging to two persons, Padampat Singhania having Re.
under s. 13 of the Bihar Agricultural Income tax Act Bihar Act 32 of 1948 in respect of the agricultural income payable by each of the partners It is to be numbericed that the underlined words in the question appeared to assume that the companycern was a partnership firm.
2,000 00 of land out of which about Ac.
The High Court of Patna was then moved under s. 28 3 of the Act and, it called for a re ference from the Board on a differently worded question which expressed the real issue between the parties Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the companymon manager should be assessed under section 13 of the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act in respect of the agricultural income tax payable by the persons jointly liable ?
483 00 were purchased in the name of a mill, namely, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill of which the aforesaid two persons were the owners.
Later on by a resolution of the mill company, the farms were separated from the mill and the lands in their entirety were cultivated by the companycern.
