N.G. Das, J.
1. By means of this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 which is a tea estate, namely, Anandapur Tea Estate, now owned by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 has challenged the, legality and validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, dated October 16, 1989, contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition.
2. I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. A.K. Sharma, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The only question which calls for consideration is whether Section 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is applicable to the case of the petitioners.
4. To answer the question the facts relevant for the purpose may be stated as under :
Petitioner No. 1, namely, Anandapur Tea Estate which is situate at Bokakhat in the district of Golaghat originally belonged to the late Jogananda Deva Goswami, i.e., father of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. During his lifetime the late Jogananda Deva Goswami gifted half of the aforesaid tea estate to his son, Shri Gopal Chandra Deva Goswami (petitioner No. 2), and the remaining half of the aforesaid tea estate to his other son, namely, Shri Govinda Chandra Deva Goswami (petitioner No. 3), by executing two separate deeds of gift which were also registered duly. But even though the aforesaid tea estate was gifted as stated above, the petitioners have stated that the management of the aforesaid tea estate was carried on by a common manager and accordingly the return of income for the assessment year 1975-76 was filed in the name of Anandapur Tea Estate showing both petitioners No. 2 and 3 as owners in equal shares. But the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Guwahati, completed the assessment taking the status of the tea estate as unregistered firm and tax was levied treating the tea estate as an unregistered firm instead of assessing the co-owners individually on their respective shares of income which is 50 per cent. each. The assessment so calculated is contained in annexure-1. Aggrieved by this assessment, the petitioners preferred appeals, four in number, but those appeals were dismissed by the order dated July 30, 1987, contained in annexure-2. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioners preferred revisions but the revision petitions were also dismissed by the order dated October 16, 1989, contained in annexure-3. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition for the reliefs as stated above.
5. The only contention advanced by Dr. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that both the appellate authority and the revisional authority misinterpreted the provisions laid down under Section 13 of the Act. It is contended by Dr. Saraf that even though there was a gift, the factual position is that both the brothers are managing the tea estate under the same name, i.e., Anandapur Tea Estate, by a common manager and hence the petitioners are entitled to make payment of the taxes showing both petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as co-owners with definite interest in the tea estate. It is, however, admitted by Dr. Saraf that the late Jogananda Deva Goswami who was the original owner of the tea estate gifted half of the aforesaid tea estate to his eldest son, namely, petitioner No. 2, by executing a registered deed of gift and similarly he also gifted the remaining half of the tea estate to his second son, namely, petitioner No. 3, by executing a separate deed of gift. In the course of his arguments, Dr. Saraf has also stated that the gifts so made were also duly accepted by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. It is, therefore, quite clear from the submission of Dr. Saraf that the aforesaid tea estate was bifurcated by two separate deeds of gift and both the donees accepted the gifts. This being the accepted position of the case, there is no difficulty to conclude that petitioner No. 2 became an absolute owner of half of the tea estate and similarly petitioner No. 3 also became the owner of the remaining half of the aforesaid tea estate. But even though the aforesaid tea estate has been bifurcated and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have become owners separately, it is contended by Dr. Saraf that their interest is still joint and the management of the tea estate is virtually being carried on by a common manager. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be assessed to tax showing both petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as co-owners having definite interest in the tea estate.
6. It may, therefore, be advantageous to quote the provisions laid down under Section 13 of the Act which reads :
'Assessment of tax on common manager, receiver, etc. -- Where any person holds land, from which agricultural income is derived, as a common manager appointed under any law for the time being in force or under any agreement or as receiver, administrator or the like on behalf of persons jointly interested in such land or in the agricultural income derived therefrom, the aggregate of sums payable as agricultural income-tax by each person on the agricultural income derived from such land and received or receivable by him shall be assessed on such common manager, receiver, administrator or the like and he shall be deemed to be the assessee in respect of the agricultural income-tax so payable by each such person and shall be liable to pay the same.'
7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the agricultural income-tax in such case is determined with reference to each
of the persons jointly interested in such land. Here the controversy is whether the interest of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 remained joint in the aforesaid tea estate. I have already stated above that there is no dispute about the fact that during his life time the late Jogananda Deva Goswami gifted half of the tea estate to his eldest son, namely, petitioner No. 2, by executing a registered deed of gift and similarly he also gifted the remaining half of the tea estate to his other son, namely, petitioner No. 3, by executing a deed of gift.
8. This being the factual position of the case, there is no escape but to conclude that petitioner No. 2 became absolute owner of half of the tea estate which has been gifted to him and similarly petitioner No. 3 became absolute owner of the remaining half of the tea estate. Therefore, in the absence of any document showing that both the brothers agreed to run the tea estate jointly having the same interest there is no scope to say that each of them has joint interest in each portion of the aforesaid tea estate. The advantage of Section 13 of the Act is not available unless and until it is shown that agriculture income is derived on behalf of both petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 jointly. Here, in view of the facts stated above, there is no scope to say that both the brothers have joint interest in either of the two halves. By virtue of the registered deed of gift which was executed by their father each has become an absolute owner of the portion which has been gifted to him. Therefore, the advantage of Section 13 is not available to the petitioners.
9. However, in view of the submission of Dr. Saraf that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 being the absolute owners of their respective shares they may be separately assessed, the revisional authority may consider this aspect if relevant documents, namely, records of right, records of mutation, etc., are produced before him. If mutation has already been done then in that case petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 will be entitled to be assessed to tax separately.
10. With the above observation this writ petition is dismissed with no costs.