- (1.) These appeals by certificate under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution paise an important question whether an assessee having once exercised the option regarding the method of computation of his agricultural income by filing the requisite declaration along with his return is entitled. to change the option under the U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948
(2.) The appellant-assessee (The. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, Delhi) is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and has certain agricultural farms at Daurala in Meerut District from which it derives agricultural income chargeable to levy of agricultural income-tax and super tax under S. 3 of the U. P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act'). S. 6 (2) of the Act provides two alternative methods of computation of agricultural income, (a) rental method (multiple of annual rental income) mentioned in clause (a) or (b) produce method (subject to deductions) mentioned in clause (b) and under S. 6 (1) an-option is given to the assessee to select one or the other method whichever may be advantageous to him. Such option is required to be indicated in declaration" in the prescribed Form No. A. 1. T.-2 to be submitted under Rule 5 of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1949 along with his return under S. 15 of the Act. For the assessment year 1954-55 a return of the- agricultural income for the relevant previous year ending 30/06/1954 (1361 Fasli) was filed under S. 15 (2) of the Act on 27/11/1954 by the appellant-assessee, returning a net income ofrs. 1,06,664. 00. Along with the return a declaration in Form No. A. I. T-2. was also filed indicating the option to be assessed in accordance with S. 6 (2) (b) of the Act. On 4/04/1955 the appellant-assessee discovering some mistake in the said return filed a revised return under S. 15 (4) of the Act showing the net income at Rs. 98,854. 00 and explaining that the difference was due to certain further deductions that were claimed on account of expenses, and while filing such revised return the option under S. 6 (2) (b) was adhered to. However, notwithstanding the filing of the aforesaid two returns, one on 27/11/1954 and the revised return on 4/04/1955, on Apr 7/04/1955 the Assessing Authority served upon the appellant-assessee a notice under S. 15 (3) requiring the latter to furnish within period specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth its total agricultural income in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1954-55 and along with such notice a provisional estimate of the assessee's agricultural income for the previous year (i. e. 1361 Fasli) computed under S. 6 (2) (a) was also furnished as required by S. 15 (3-B) of the Act; the provisional estimate made in accordance with S. 6 (2) (a) of the Act showed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,07,923. 00/9/ -.
(3.) It appears-that-neither the original return filed on 27/11/1954 nor the revised return filed on 4/04/1955 was found to be correct or complete by the Assessing Authority and, therefore, on 14/04/1955 the Assessing Authority served a notice under S. 16 (2) of the Act on the appellant-assessee requiring it to produce evidence in support of its return; in reply the assessee produced some evidence in the form of accounts and vouchers and details of the various expenses were also supplied. On 29/09/1955, however, another notice was given to the appellant-assessee stating that its income bad escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 38,947. 00 and objections were invited. Thereupon, the appellant-assessee applied for inspection of the record before the Assessing Authority, but the application was rejected on 18/10/1955 against which a revision was filed by the appellant before the Revision Board and on 29/04/1958 the Board allowed the revision application and the Assessing Authority was directed to permit the inspection of the record. Thereupon the appellant took inspection of the record, but on 8/11/1958, being the date fixed for the hearing of the objections, the appellant filed a fresh return (third return) in respect of its agricultural income for the self-same previous year (1361 Fasli) and this was done in response to the notice dated 7/04/1955 that had been served upon it by the Assessing Authority under S. 15 (3-B) of the Act and along with this return, which showed the net income of Rs. 1,79,543. 00/5/9, a declaration in the prescribed Form No. A. I. T.-2 selecting the method of computation of agricultural income under S. 6 (2) (a) was also filed and the appellant prayed that it should be allowed to change the option and have its income computed under S. 6 (2) (a) instead of under S. 6 (2) (b) as previously intimated.;