The main legal point established is that S.9(2)(a)(iv) can only apply when there has been a transfer of assets to the minor child not being a married daughter otherwise than for adequate consideration.

1. The petitioner, who owns 9.02 acres of land said to have been mostly planted with cardamom at Udumbanchola village, seeks to quash the second part of Ex. P1 notice issued to him under S.18 of the Agricultural Incometax Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by the Agricultural Incometax and Sales-tax Officer, the first respondent herein. The petitioner claims to have filed a return in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of income received by him from the properties owned by him for the years 1977-78,1978-79,1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessing authority did not accept the returns in the absence of accounts and other supporting evidence. Ex. P1 notice states that the petitioner has purchased 2.50 acres and 2.34 acres of cardamom estate in the name of his minor sons P. G. Subbaraju and P. J. Prabhu Ram respectively and that the source of income for purchasing these properties in the name of his minor sons has not been proved. Therefore, the assessing authority clubbed the income of properties purchased in the name of the minors with the income of the petitioner from his own properties and proposed to complete the assessment as if the petitioner owned 13.86 acres. Ex. P1 notice was thereupon issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file his objection against the proposals of assessment on or before 12-11-1980. Thus Ex. P1 notice, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, consists of two parts and the first part relates to the non-acceptance of the returns filed by the petitioner in respect of properties admittedly owned and possessed by him, on the ground that there was no proper accounts or other evidence to substantiate the return filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has no grievance against that part of the notice and the same has not been challenged in this petition. The second part of the notice relates to the income from 2.50 acres and 2.34 acres of cardamom estate purchased in the name of minor sons of the petitioner. The assessing authority, on the ground that the source of income for this purchase has not been proved, proceeded to assess the petitioner clubbing the income from those properties with the income of the properties of the petitioner. It is this part of the notice that is being challenged and sought to be quashed.

2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is on the assumption that the case falls under S.9(2) (a) (iv) of the Act that the first respondent has proposed to assess the petitioner including the income from the properties of the minors while computing the total agricultural income of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that this proposal is without any jurisdiction or authority as S.9(2) (a) (iv) has absolutely no application to the case on the admitted facts. The learned advocate appearing for the first respondent wanted to support Ex. P1 on the ground that this is a case which clearly falls under S.9(2) (a) (iv) of the Act and therefore it cannot be said that Ex. P1 notice issued is without jurisdiction or in violation of any statutory provisions.

3. The only question, therefore, that arises for determination in this original petition is whether, on the admitted facts and the available materials, in computing the total agricultural income of the petitioner can the income of the properties purchased in the name of his minor sons be included. S.9(2) (a) (iv) reads:

"9(2) In computing the total agricultural income of any individual for purpose of assessment there shall be included

(a) so much of the agricultural income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly

(iv) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child not being a married daughter by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration "

A careful reading of this section as a whole and in particular, sub-section (2) (a) (iv) clearly shows that clause (iv) can only apply where there has been a transfer of as