P L D 1965 W (PLP)

Muhammad Yunus for the State. Gul Jahanian Shah for Respondents. This case was taken up under the provisions of section 4 of the Agricultural Income‑tax Act read with section 16(i) of the Land Revenue Act as adopted by the West Pakistan Board of Revenue (Adaptation and Repeal of Laws) Act of 1957 on a reference received from the Commissioner, Multan Division. The facts of the case are that Mian Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana applied to the Deputy Commissioner that, after he had transferred the land in favour of his minor son, the assess ment of Agricultural Income‑tax for the year 1959 was made entirely in the name of the transferor and requested that the assessment of the tax should be made against the transferee. The Collector ordered that the son should have been treated as a separate assessee. The Tahsildar, Vihari, was asked to revise the assessment. As at the time of transfer of land, the transferor had taken the responsibility of payment on himself for the transferred area, the Tahsildar did not recommend the assessment in the name of the transferee. The Revenue Assistant did not support it either and finally the Collector rejected the application. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Multan who accepted it and directed that the tax as envisaged by section 8 of the Act, 1950 is to be assessed separately on the land owned by the transferor and on the land transferred to the minor son although the liability for payment of the tax so assessed remained on the transferor till the transferee attains the age of 8 years. After passing the orders mentioned above, the Commissioner made a demi oflicial reference and the case was examined. It was considered by my learned predecessor who made a reference to the Full Board for a decision on the following points:‑ "Whether section 8 of the Punjab Act VIII of 1950 envisages that, on transfer of some land to a minor, the transferor remains liable for payment of tax assessed on the basis of land revenue for the entire holding preceding the transfer or the taxes to be assessed separately on the two holdings as individual units and it is merely the liability for its payment which remains with the transferor." The Full Board considered the matter and gave a decision on the 11th of March 1965 laying down that the meaning of section 8 of the Punjab Act VIII of 1950 is that envisaged in the first alternative and not that in the second alternative in the question posed to the Full Board by the learned single Member. The present reference has to be decided in the light of the above decision. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader. The decision of the Full Board is quite clear. I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the assessment of the agricultural income‑tax will now be made in the light of the decision given by the Full Board. A. H. Petition accepted.