0 4 0 share and lala bishundayal jhunjhunwala having re.
then three applications in revision were filed to the board of revenue.
2000 00 of land out of which about ac.
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 co 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.
483 00 were purchased in the name of a mill namely motilal padampat sugar mill of which the aforesaid two persons were the owners.
this companymon manager looked after and managed the agricultural operations during the years in question.
this plea of the assessee was rejected by the income tax officer.
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 companyrt dated september 29 1959.
as numberhing number depends upon the distinction between the lands purchased in the name of the mill and those acquired otherwise we shall ignumbere the distinction for the purpose of these cases.
1600 00 were purchased jointly by padampat singhania and bishundayal jhunjhunwala and ac.
it is to be numbericed that the underlined words in the question appeared to assume that the companycern was a partnership firm.
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 ?
the high companyrt of patna was then moved under s. 28 3 of the act and it called for a reference 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 ?
the board however refused to make a reference.
the assessee then moved the board of revenue for making a reference to the high companyrt 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.
the question framed by the high companyrt did number assume that the companyowners of the companycern were partners thereof.
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 on s. k. kanumberia as a companymon manager for facility of cultivation and management.
k. das j. the champaran cane companycern 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 motihari for three years 1356 f. 1357 f. and 1358 f. corresponding to 1948 49 1950 51 and 1951 52 respectively.
the high companyrt 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 partnership firm.
appeals were then preferred against the assessments made to the deputy commissioner of agricultural income tax.
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.
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.
the concern it was stated carried on agricultural operations in six farms consisting of a little over ac.
0 12 0 share.
