The main legal point established in the judgment is that section 9(2)(a) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act applies only to the minor children of the assessee-individual, and not to the grandchildren.

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. In this writ petition, Mr. Balachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of assessment to agricultural income-tax passed by the Junior Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Badagara, under Ext. P-1, dated 23rd September 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, Act XXII of 1950.

2. It is not really necessary for me to go into the various other grounds of attack that have been made as against this order in question, viz., that it is arbitrary and that the assessing authority has erred in not accepting the materials furnished by the assessee in support of the return.

3. But one aspect that has been very seriously pressed before me and which appeals to me is the attack levelled as against that order, that the assessing authority, when he proceeded on the basis that, under section 9 (2) (a) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, he has got jurisdiction and power to take into account the income that must have accrued from the properties that have been transferred by the petitioner in favour of his three married daughters and their respective children, in computing the total income of the assessee, has acted illegally and without jurisdiction.

4. It will be seen that the petitioner sent a return of his agricultural income for the year in question as an individual. He had also indicated that under three registered documents bearing Nos. 773, 774 and 776 executed in 1959, he had gifted certain of his properties in favour of his three married adult daughters and their respective children. In consequence, in the return, he included only the total income which, according to him, has accrued to him from the properties, which were then in his exclusive possession and enjoyment. Quite naturally, he did not take into account the income from the properties that had been transferred to the three daughters and their children by virtue of the documents executed by him.

5. The assessing authority sends a pre-assessment notice under Ext. P-2, dated 12th September 1961. The officer states that the petitioner has not accounted for the income derived from " the properties gifted by you to the minors " as per the three gift deeds. The three gift deeds are referred to by the officer in Ext. P-2. The three documents referred to by the officer, are (1) document No. 773, dated 9th April 1959 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Perambra, in favour of his daughter Mandoth Cheeru Amma, and her four minor children. The extent of the property covered by this document is stated to be 5 acres 11 cents; (2) document No. 774, dated 9th April 1959 to another daughter of his, namely, Mandoth Madhu Amma and her three minor children and the extent of the land is 6.17 acres; (3) document No. 776, dated 29th April 1959 in favour of his third daughter, Madhavi Amma and her minor son, Ramakrishnan, and the extent of the properties comprised in the document is 4.33 acres.

6. The officer is of the view that the income from the properties gifted to the 'minor children' should be added to the petitioner's income for arriving at his total income under section 9 (2) of the Act. Pausing here for a minute, one should take it that the assessing authority when he used the expression "gifted to minor children " in the notice, Ext. P-2, is referring to the gifts effected by the petitioner to his three married adult daughters as well as the minor children those daughters. There is nothing in Ext. P-2 to show that the assessing authority has proceeded on the basis that there has been any transfer or gift made by the petitioner to any of his minor children. So far as the petitioner was concerned, the gifts executed by him were to his three adult married daughters and their children. The learned Government Pleader has also accepted the position that reference to "minors" and "gifted to minor children" occurring in Ext. P-2, has reference only to the minor grand children of the petitioner, i.e., the minor child