Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 188 of 1952‑53 decided on 14th November 1953, from District Multan.

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)‑Appeal--- Limitation‑Whether begins from date of order in all cases e. g., when order not communicated to party‑Decision in 1944 L. L. T. 5 doubted.

(b) Punjab Agricultural Income‑tax Act (XVI of 1951); S.11 (2) Explanation 1‑Shareholders in a limited company or members of a registered society not joint owners for purposes of assessment of tax.

Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Petitioner.

‑The British Cotton Growers Association Limited has been assessed to Agricultural Income‑tax amounting to Rs. 1,60,859 for the year 1950‑51 and Rs. 68,638 for the year 1951‑52 by the Collector, Multan District. They appealed to the Commissioner but be rejected their two appeals by a single order dated 28th September 195,2. They have now come upto the Financial Commissioner in revision in both the cases.

The Ahmadiya Anjuman‑i‑Ishaat‑i‑Islam was assessed to Agricultural Income‑tax amounting to Rs. 7j071 by the order of the Collector, Montgomery District, dated 14th June 1951. They appealed to the Commissioner who rejected their appeal on 28th September 1952. They have now come up to the Financial Commissioner in revision.

The present order will dispose of all the three petitions together, because the points raised in each are similar.

The Commissioner considered that the appeals lodged before him were time‑barred. 1, however, find that the appeal lodged by the Ahmadiya Anjuman‑i‑Ishaat‑i‑Islam was within time, having been lodged on 10th August 1951, that is within 60 days of the order of assessment had been passed. The counsel for the Association argued before the Commissioner that the limitation should begin from the date of the communication of the order of assessment. This plea was, however, not accepted by the Commissioner. I find that if this plea had been accepted, the appeal in respect of the year 1951‑52 would have been within time, but the appeal in respect of the year 1950‑51 would have been time barred. The question raised by the Counsel for the assessees is, therefore, important only in respect of the assessment of the B. C. G. A. for the year 1951‑52. The ruling of the Financial Commissioner, in Division Bench, reported at page 5 of the Lahore Law Times 1944, is to the effect that the limitation in the case of appeals under the Land Revenue Act runs from A the date of the order appealed against even if the order was pot communicated to the parties. I have certain views which are in conflict with the universal character of the said ruling. I have considered the point whether I should refer the question to a Bench consisting of two Financial Commissioners, but I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary in the present case, because the petitions deserve to be rejected on merits, as would appear from the subsequent discussion. I, therefore, leave this point undecided.

The second point raised by the counsel for the assessees is that the shareholders of the B. C. G. A. and the various members of the Ahmadiya Anjuman‑i‑I shaat‑i‑Islam should be considered to be joint owners of the properties involved and each of them should be assessed to Agricultural Income‑tax on the basis of his share in the property. This argument is based on explanation 1 of section 11 (2) of the Punjab Agricultural Income‑tax Act, 1950, and the Punjab Agricultural Income‑tax Act, 1951. The discussion of this point in the orders of the Commissioner dated 28th September 1952, is rather vague and in fact beside the point. The real point is that the assessment of sbare‑holders individually is required by the law when the share‑holders own the property jointly. The position, however, is different where they are merely share‑holders in a company which in its individual capacity as a juristic person is shown as the owner of the property. The B. C. G. A. is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and enjoys a separate existence of its own. The land owned by it cannot be treated as land owned by the various individuals who own the share B capital of the company. Similarly, the Ahrnadiya‑Anjuman‑i‑Ishaat i‑Islam is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its property vests in its governing body and do not amount to the joint ownership of the numerous persons who are members of the society. The result, therefore, is that the argument advanced by the assessees' counsel on this subject is of no avail in either case.

Finally, the counsel for the assessees has argued that the Punjab Agricultural Income‑tax Acts of 1950 and 1951 are nullities in law, because they were enacted by the Governor of the Punjab who was administering the Province under section 92‑A of the Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted for Pakistan, without the assistance of any Ministers and in the absence of the Provincial Legislature. He argues that the order of the Governor-General inserting section 92‑A in the said Government of India Act was not a competent act, because the contents of section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, did not make a provision for such insertions. I find that there is no force in his argument, because clause (c) of subsection (1) of the said section 9 permitted the Governor‑General by order to make such provision as appeared to him to be necessary or expedient for making "modifications of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Orders‑in‑Council, rules and other instruments made thereunder, in their application to" Pakistan. The Governor of the Punjab was, therefore, empower ed correctly under section 92‑A of the Government of India Act, 1935, which had been correctly inserted by the Governor‑General.

The result is that the three petitions must fail. I accordingly dismiss them. Announced.

A. H. Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.