Judgment :- 1. The attack that is made as against the order Ext. P-2, made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1960 61, is that the assessing authority has got no jurisdiction in making an assessment as against the entire total income of the four shares owned by the minors in distinct and separate shares and treating them as one single unit for purposes of making the assessment. 2. One Radhakrishna Punchithaya had five children, one of whom is a major. By a document, dated 30th December 1957, copy of which has been produced as Ext. P-1 in these proceedings, there was a partition entered into among the father and his major and minor sons, and the properties were allowed in distinct and separate shares according to the Hindu Mitakshara Law. 3. The father and the major son are being assessed separately, and that does not arise at all in these proceedings. 4. On behalf of the four minor sons, to each of whom a distinct and separate share had been allotted in the partition under Ext. P-1 and for whom the mother was appointed as the legal guardian, the mother sent a return in respect of the income for the assessment year 1960-61. Notwithstanding the fact that the guardian claimed that the assessment must be made as against the individual shares of each of these minors and that the total income of the minors cannot be clubbed together for making an assessment, that contention has been overruled by the assessing authority, as will be seen from the order Ext. P-2. 5. The assessing authority appears to proceed on the basis that the provisions contained in S.8 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act will enable him to make an assessment on the guardian on behalf of the minors. 6. The proposition of law that it is open to the assessing authority to make an assessment in respect of the property of a minor on the guardian as such under S.8 of the Act, is beyond dispute and controversy. Nevertheless the Officer has made a mistake in proceeding on the basis that S.8 will give him jurisdiction to club the income of the minors, notwithstanding the fact that each of them has got a distinct and separate share, owning it in his own individual right, and that under S.8 that procedure is warranted. 7. Nevertheless the Officer has made a mistake in proceeding on the basis that S.8 will give him jurisdiction to club the income of the minors, notwithstanding the fact that each of them has got a distinct and separate share, owning it in his own individual right, and that under S.8 that procedure is warranted. 7. Quite naturally the learned Government Pleader found considerable difficulty in supporting this line of reasoning adopted by the assessing authority. 8. While it is possible to accept the view of the Officer that it is open to him to make an assessment regarding the income of the minors on the guardian under S.8, it must be made clear that in this case the four minors, for whom a return had been made by the guardian, own the properties in their individual right. Therefore, for purposes of making the assessment, the authority can take into account only the total income of each of the minors, and assessment will have to be made as against the income that has accrued to each of the minors separately. The authority has no jurisdiction to take into account the consolidated total income of the four minors for the purpose of making a common assessment, as he has done under Ext. P-2 in these proceedings. 9. I am not prepared to allow the petitioner to go into the various other matters dealt with in the assessment order under attack, as they relate to facts. 10. The total income that has been taken into account for the purpose of assessment under Ext. P-2 will stand. But out of that total income, the share of each of the minors will be ascertained and separate assessments will be made as against each if the sharers and the tax liability fixed as against each minor. 11. Subject to these directions and observations, the order under attack is set aside to the extent indicated above. Parties will bear their costs.