King, J.

1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is an agriculturist entitled to claim the benefit of Act IV of 1938. The learned District Judge of Bellary has held that he is not an Agriculturist firstly because he has been assessed to Income Tax under proviso (A) to Section 3 and secondly because he has paid house-tax under proviso (c). We may say at once that the second reason cannot be substantiated. The language of proviso (c) is that he should be assessed to house-tax. The only evidence is an admission by the appellant that he had gifted certain houses to his wife and that his wife pays taxes on those houses. There is nothing in the case to show, whether this statement could be believed or not, that the houses have been assessed as the property of the appellant.

2. On the first ground however the order of the learned District Judge must, we think, be upheld. The facts are that the appellant was a partner in a ginning factory and was entitled to one-fourth share of the profits and that the factory was assessed to Income Tax for its profits in the year 1937-38. It is argued by Mr. Raghava Rao on behalf of the appellant that because no specifi