K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Om Prakash, C.J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Section 13(1) reads as under :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52):

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '729738',
			'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
			'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '729738',
		(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K G Keshava Bhat Vs State of Kerala and ors - Citation 729738 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '729738',
		'acts' => 'Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - Sections 2, 2(20), 2(25), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 13, 13(1), 13(9) and 13(9B),',
		'appealno' => 'T.R.C. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 144, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 341, 343 and 344 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.G. Keshava Bhat Vs. State of Kerala and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 3 (1) and 13 (1) of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 - whether benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1) be availed of by tenants-in-common - under Section 3 (1) assessable entity is 'person' - tenants-in-common is individual to be assessed as 'person' - tenants-in-common who held property not exceeding 20 hectares entitled to benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13 (1).


Head Note:
INCOME TAX
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--ASSESSABLE ENTITYTenants-in-common whether a 'person'
Catch Note:
Assessee holding property as tenant-in-common--'Person' under section 2(20) does not mean 'individual' only--Under section 3(2) a person may also hold property as tenant-in-common--Not justified--Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of character of persons--Assessee tenant-in-common would therefore, be a assessable entity under the Act and it cannot be said taht tenant-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1)
Held:
Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. As defined in section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. Therefore, there was no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. [Paras 3 & 4]
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.2
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.3
Kerala Agrl ITA 1950 s.13
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Assessment--TENANT-IN-COMMONBenefit of compounding under section 13(1) whether available
Catch Note:
Assessees are tenant-in-common--Claiming benefit of compounding under section 13(1)--Tenant-in-common not excluded in sub-section (9) of section 13--Tenants in common are 'persons' under section 2(25)--Therefore, tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Held:
Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons, which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3(1) as well as under section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.
Application:
Also to current assessment year
Decision:
In favour of assessee
 
 
 
 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]:  [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability  Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appeals against judgment of single Judge is not maintainable. Provisions of Section 100-A, C.P.C., will prevail over the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Act, 1959.          -  raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, the Act'), can be. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P. Srihari and; P. Vani, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' V.V. Asokan, Spl. Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Om Prakash, C.J. and; J.B. Koshy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.</p><p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.</p><p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :</p><p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--</p><p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.</p><p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.</p><p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.</p><p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :</p><p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'</p><p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:</p><p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)</p><p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.</p><p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.</p><p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.</p><p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :</p><p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'</p><p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.</p><p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.</p><p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).</p><p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).</p><p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): </p><p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' </p><p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.</p><p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.</p><p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1999]240ITR313(Ker)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Kerala and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '729738',
	(int) 1 => 'k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/729738/k-g-keshava-bhat-vs-state-kerala-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Om Prakash, C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consecutive assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded April 1, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of Sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as Sub-section (9B) came to be inserted after the expiry of the relevant assessment years.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that Sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) even before the insertion of Sub-section (9B) in the Act.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. To support the order of the Assessing Officer, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not 'persons' within the meaning of Section 13(1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>6. Section 3(1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below :',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.--(1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common'. (underlining by court)',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Section 2(20) defines the word 'person' as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>9. Section 2(25) defines the term 'tenants-in-common' as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that the word 'person' does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property. Also, a 'person' under Section 2(20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, a person may also hold property as 'tenant-in-common'. Therefore the term 'tenants-in-common' denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that persons holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under Section 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common, When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not 'person' within the meaning of Section 13(1), does not hold good and has to be rejected.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>10. Charging Section 3(1) is attracted to 'person' only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>11. Section 13(1) reads as under :',
	(int) 16 => '<p>'13. Composition of agricultural income-fax.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table . . .'',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. No different meaning could be assigned to the word 'person', occurring under Section 13(1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under Section 3(1). As defined in Section 2(25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of Section 13(1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of Section 2(25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Sub-section (9) of Section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term 'tenants-in-common' does not appear under Sub-section (9). It means that Sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging Section 3(1) as well as under Section 13(1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then Sub-section (9) of Section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any association of persons, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 and they being persons by virtue of Section 2(25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. Section 5 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a 'person'. It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under Section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term 'tenants-in-common' denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is 'person'.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>15. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that subjection (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of Sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of Sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for Sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 21 => '<p>16. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why Sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the Legislature. It is true that the Legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering Section 13(1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by Sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>17. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M.S.P. Rajah v. IAC of Agrl. I.T. and S.T. : [1972]83ITR46(Ker) . In this authority, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words 'tenants-in-common' could be construed only as an association of persons under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an association of persons. The learned single judge then held as follows (page 52): ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'. . . the word 'person' is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act ; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition ; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, an association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of 'person'. They are specifically dealt with in Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that a tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties.' ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging Section 3(1), the assessable entity is 'person'. However, the learned judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under Section 13(1) of the Act.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>20. In the result, all the TRCs succeed and are allowed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109