Judgment :- OM PRAKASH, C.J. These four sets of tax reference cases raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1) of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act, 1991 (briefly, "the Act"), can be availed of by tenants-in-common. Sub-section (9B) of section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 w.e.f. 1st April, 1994, is as under : "(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if, - (i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under sub-section (1)." 2. After insertion of sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1). But, we are concerned in the instant Tax reference cases with the consecutive asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1993-94, which preceded 1st April, 1994, when the amending Act 19 of 1994 came into force. The stand taken by the assessing authority in all these cases is that the benefit of sub-section (9B) will not enure to the tenants-in-common for the assessment years in question, inasmuch as sub-section (9B) came to the inserted after expiry of the relevant assessment years. 3. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that sub-section (9B) is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1) even before the insertion of sub-section (9B) in the Act. To support the order of the AO, who denied the benefit of compounding to the tenants-in-common, the Government Pleader submits that the tenants-in-common are not "persons" within the meaning of section 13 (1) and, therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of compounding thereunder. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1) of the Act. 4. Sec. 13 (1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below : "3. Charge of agricultural income-tax. The question, therefore, is whether tenants-in-common are assessable as persons and, if so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1) of the Act. 4. Sec. 13 (1) of the Act is a charging section, which is extracted below : "3. Charge of agricultural income-tax. - (1) Tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule of this Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person." Sub-section (2) of section 3 reads as under : "Subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common." Sec. 2 (20) defines the word "person" as meaning any individual or association of individuals owning, possessing or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, possessor, trustee receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity and includes a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, any institution capable of holding property. Sec. 2 (25) defines the term "tenants-in-common" as meaning two or more persons owning or managing property jointly, having therein equal or unequal shares either by the same or different titles or by intestate succession. From the above definition sections, it is amply clear that words "person" does not mean an individual only, but that also means, an association of individuals owning possessing or holding property. Also, a "person" under section 2 (20) may hold property for his own benefit or for the benefit of others or in diverse capacities as owner, trustee, receiver, manager, administrator or executor. Under sub-section (2) of section 3, a person may also hold property as "tenants-in-common". Therefore the term enants-in-common" denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that person holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under section 3. Sub-section (2) of section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Therefore the term enants-in-common" denotes the capacity in which a person may hold property. It is not disputed that person holding property as tenants-in-common are chargeable to tax under section 3. Sub-section (2) of section 3 explains the manner of assessment if persons hold property as tenants-in-common. Sub-section (2) provides that if persons hold property as tenants-in-common and derive agricultural income, then the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. If two or more persons own or manage property jointly, they hold that as tenants-in-common. A tenant-in-common is as much a person as an individual is and he holds property in the capacity of tenant-in-common. Therefore, it is clear that a person may hold property individually as well as as a tenant-in-common. When a person holds property as tenant-in-common, he does not cease to be a person, but his capacity to hold the property changes. Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a tenant-in-common is not "person" within the meaning of section 13 (1), does not hold good and has to be rejected. Charging section 3 (1) is attracted to "person" only. Agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common was assessable to tax even prior to the amending Act 19 or 1994. It is, therefore, clear that tenants-in-common were assessed to tax only as persons and not as tenants-in-common, as that is not an assessable entity under the Act. Sec. 13 (1) reads as under : "13. Composition of agricultural income-tax. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income may apply to the Agrl. ITO for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table ............" 5. No different meaning could be assigned to the word "person", occurring under section 13 (1) of the Act and that has to be understood the same way as that is understood under section 13 (1). As defined in section 2 (25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. As defined in section 2 (25), when two or more persons hold property jointly, they do so as tenants-in-common and assessment in respect of their agricultural income will be made in the manner as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 3. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of the Government Pleader that the tenants-in-common are not persons within the meaning of section 13 (1). Plurality of persons holding property jointly will not rob them of the character of persons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as a person can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1), the same way two or more persons who hold property jointly and who, within the meaning of section 2 (25), are tenants-in-common, can claim the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1). 6. Sub-section (9) of section 13 is an exclusionary provision. Sub-section (9) provides that the provisions of section 13 shall not apply to a member of any AOP which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. The term "tenants-in-common" does not appear under sub-section (9). It means that sub-section (9) does not exclude tenants-in-common, who are persons within the meaning of the charging section 3 (1) as well as under section 13 (1). If the legislative intention were to exclude the tenants-in-common from the benefit of compounding, then sub-section (9) of section 13 should have explicitly excluded tenants-in-common like members of any AOP, a company or co-operative society. Tenants-in-common not being explicitly excluded under sub-section (9) of section 13 and they being persons by virtue of section 2 (25) and other sections under the Act, are entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1) like other individuals deriving agricultural income from their landed property. 7. Sec. 15 in Chapter III relates to computation of agricultural income of a "person". It is not disputed that computation of agricultural income in the hands of tenants-in-common is also done under section 5 only. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term "tenants-in-common" denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is "person". 8. It clearly indicates that landed property held by tenants-in-common is nothing but a property held by persons in the capacity as that of tenants-in-common. The term "tenants-in-common" denotes capacity and not the assessable entity, which, for the purpose of the Act, is "person". 8. From the scheme of the Act, the only inference that can be drawn is that sub-section (9B) of section 13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of sub-section (9B), does not hold to be correct. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of sub-section (9B), which is merely clarificatory. We do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that but for sub-section (9B), the benefit of compounding cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common under section 13 (1). 9. The Government Pleader submits that if the tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1) prior to the amending Act 19 of 1994, then why sub-section (9B) was introduced by amending the Act by the legislature. It is true that the legislature never undertakes a redundant exercise. We do not dispute the legal proposition that if a legislation is already in existence, then the same will not be repeated. But it is not uncommon that clarificatory legislation is introduced if there is any ambiguity or confusion in regard to the existing legislation. This is what exactly happened while administering section 13 (1). The authorities harboured the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under section 13 (1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by sub-section (9B) that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13 (1). 10. Lastly, the learned Government Pleader relied on M. S. P. Rajah vs. IAC of Agrl. IT and ST. (1972) 83 ITR 46 (Ker). In this authority, the IAC of Agrl. IT and ST assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Dy CIT without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agrl. In this authority, the IAC of Agrl. IT and ST assigned the status of tenants-in-common to the petitioners, who entered into a partnership in respect of an estate admitting two minors to the benefits of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal before the Dy CIT without success. Then the dispute was carried to the Agrl. Tribunal, who, while setting aside the assessment, held that the words "tenants-in-common" could be construed only as an AOP under the Agrl. IT Act. This is how the Tribunal held that the assessment should be made as an AOP. The learned single Judge then held as follows : "...... the words 'person' is defined in section 2 (m) of the Act; and it includes an association of individuals. The different capacities or status, in which a person may be assessed are those mentioned in the said definition; and a person in any of those capacities is an assessable unit. Therefore, a association of individuals is a person, and an assessable unit. Tenants-in-common do not come within the definition of "person". They are specifically dealt with in sub-section 3(5) of the Act, which provides that persons holding property as tenants-in-common deriving agricultural income shall be assessed at the rates applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. It is clear from the above provisions that the tenant-in-common is an individual; and he has to be assessed in that capacity in respect of his share of the income in the common properties." The question in the above authority was whether joint owners could be assessed in the status of tenants-in-common as held by the IAC. As already pointed out, tenants-in-common are not an assessable entity. Under charging section 3 (1), the assessable entity is "person". However, the learned Judge held that a tenant-in-common is an individual and he has to be assessed in that status, meaning thereby, as person, which is an assessable entity under the Act. Therefore, this authority does not benefit the respondents, but that supports the view which we have taken in the matter. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that sub-section (9B) of section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under section 13 (1) of the Act. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that sub-section (9B) of section 13 is merely explanatory and that tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under section 13 (1) of the Act. In the result, all the Tax reference cases succeed and are allowed.