Rajasekhara Murthy, J.
1. This petition arises out of an order made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax on February 13, 1980, under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 1968-69. Two assessments were made, one for the period from April 1, 1967, to September 2, 1967, on one Siddeque Ummer Saheb as individual and another for the period September 3, 1967, to December 31, 1968, (sic) on the firm, M/s. Ummer Plantations, Suntikoppa. Siddeque Ummer Saheb died on September 2, 1967, and after his death his legal representatives, viz., his widow, sons and daughter, succeeded to the estate and they constituted a firm with effect from September 3, 1967, contributing their respective interests that devolved on them under the Mohamedan law.
2. While computing the income of the firm for the year ending March 31, 1968, the ITO did not allow the expenditure incurred by the deceased up to September 2, 1967, and allowed only the expenditure incurred by the firm after September 2, 1967, and up to the end of the year.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, however, modified the said computation by allowing the expenditure incurred up to September 2, 1967, also in the hands of the firm. The Commissioner, in exercise of his suo motu revisional power under s. 35, reversed this order of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, this revision petition.
4. The Commissioner proceeded on the ground that the expenditure was incurred by Siddeque Ummer Saheb up to September 2, 1967, and that the firm was, therefore, not entitled to the deduction of those expenses in its assessment. In support of his conclusion the Commissioner relied upon the provisions of s. 15 of the Act.
5. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to go into the application of s. 15 of the Act which provides for carry forward of loss. The question involved herein is a simple question of computation of the income for the crop year ending March 31, 1967. It is common experience that in the case of a coffee estate, the income received is always relatable to the entire season. While determining that income it goes without saying that the expenditure incurred to earn that income must normally be allowed in the assessment of the recipient of that income. In the instant case, upon the death of Siddeque Ummer Saheba, his legal heirs succeeded to the estate of the deceased which consisted of all the assets and liabilities of the estate.
6. While determining the income for the year in question, the expenditure incurred to earn that income ought to have been allowed irrespective of all the legal representatives of the deceased forming a partnership firm immediately after the death of Ummer Saheb. It is also seen from the assessment that the income received from the estate for the entire year is taxed in the hands of the said firm. Therefore, it follows that the expenditure incurred for deriving the said income should be allowed in the assessment of the firm irrespective of the period during which it was incurred whether before the firm was constituted or subsequent to that. It is also clear from the assessment of the deceased, Siddeque Ummer Saheb, that in the assessment of the individual up to September 2, 1967, no part of the income from the estate for the year 1967-68 was taxed in his hands.
7. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in allowing the expenses incurred prior to September 2, 1967, also in the assessment of the firm. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, erroneous and is set aside and the order of the Deputy Commissioner is restored.