- (1.)THE assessee, Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Singh of Varanasi, was assessed under section 5 and 6 of the U.P. Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on an income of Rs. 34,437 -12 -9 for 1362 Fasli and of Rs. 37,794 -13 -4 for 1363 Fasli by the assessing authority. He appealed on the ground that he had been assessed on a wrong basis, that the whole of the rental amount due to him as rent had been realized by him from the cultivators, whereas section 5 of the Act only provided that 'the Agricultural income mentioned in clause (a) of sub -section (1) of section 2 shall be deemed to be the sum realized in the previous year on account of agricultural income'. The Additional Commissioner, who heard the appeal from the assessment order dated February 29, 1956, relating to the year 1362 Fasli did not consider the question of law raised, but he held that, in view of the practice of assessing agricultural income -tax on the basis of rental demand instead of actual realisation, 'it was not advisable at that stage to take the realized rent for the purpose of income -tax'. The Additional Commissioner also observed that the assessee, being a Raja, had a big staff and was 'expected to collect the whole amount demanded specially when it was realised from the city dwellers'. Another ground of appeal by the assessee was that the income of Rs. 1,538 from the nursery had been wrongly added to the agricultural income of 1362 Fasli, although this should have been excluded as it was not agricultural income. The assessee pointed out that he had already been taxed by the income -tax authorities on this income. This ground succeeded before the Additional Commissioner who deleted this amount from the total agricultural income of 1362 Fasli. The assessees appeal from the assessment order dated January 31, 1957, relating to the year 1363 Fasli was heard by the Commissioner before whom the Additional Commissioners judgment relating to the assessment of 1362 Fasli seems to have been placed. The Commissioner agreed with the Additional Commissioner that the total rental demand should be the basis of the assessment under section 5 of the Act, but he disagreed with the Additional Commissioner on the question whether the income of the nursery should be computed as agricultural income under section 6 of the Act, although it is not clear why the Commissioner considered the question of income from the nursery at all as it was not assessed to tax under the Act for 1363 Fasli. Consequently, there were revision applications by both sides. The revising authority agreed with the view taken by the Commissioner, Varanasi, and rejected the revision application filed by the assessee, but it allowed the revision application filed by the State so that the item of Rs. 1,538 was added to the income of the year 1362 Fasli which was the income from the nursery treated as agricultural income by the assessing authority. As the revising authority, known as 'the Revision Board', rejected the assessees application for a reference, under section 24(2) of the Act, the assessee came to this court under section 24(4) of the Act. This court then required the Revision Board to state the case of two questions of law which, in the opinion of this court, arose in the case, These questions were :
'(1) Whether there was any material before the Revision Board for holding that the entire amount of the current rental demand should be taken as agricultural income from the rent (2) Whether the income from the nursery constitutes agricultural income ?'

(2.)IN stating the case to this court the Revision Board has observed that 'section 5, read with section 2(a) of the U.P. agricultural Income -tax Act supported the view that agricultural income was to be computed on the basis of the actual realisation of rent and not the total rental demand.' The Revision Board noticed the contention of the assessees counsel that the Board had ordered agricultural income to be computed on the actual realisation for the years 1359, 1360 and 1361 Fasli. It, however, did not give a finding whether this was actually done in the case of the assessee or not. The Revision Board then gave a rather dubious finding that the practice in the past had been to compute the assessees agricultural income on the basis of the total rental demand of rent 'for the sake of convenience'. We are unable to hold that any practice or convenience can alter the law. If, as the Revision Board itself seemed to think, the law required computation on the basis of actual realisation of rent and not on the basis of the total rental demand, the Revision Board ought to have given effect to the requirement of law as against any alleged practice or convenience which could have no bearing on what the law actually authorises or requires.
It was contended on behalf of the State of U.P. that the concession by the Revision Board that the basis of assessment should be the actual realisation and not the total rental amount is erroneous. Reliance was placed upon the definition of 'agricultural income' given in section 2 of the Act which may be fully quoted here as it is necessary to consider it in answering both the questions before us. The definition is as follows :

'(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in Uttar Pradesh or is subject to a local rate or cess assessed and collected by an officer of the State Government; (b) any income derived from such land by, (i) agriculture, or (ii) the performance by a cultivator or receiver of rent -n -kind of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent -in -king to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market, or (iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rent -in -kind of the produce raised or received by him, in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in sub -clause (ii)...'

(3.)EMPHASIS was placed on behalf of the State on the word 'derived from land' used to indicate taxable income. It was contended that section 5 also uses the words 'deemed to be the sum realized' so that realizations meant whatever income was derived from land and that this would be deemed to have been actually realized. This appears to be a very unnatural interpretation. Even if we look at the word 'derived', it certainly does not mean 'deemed to be derived'. Section 5 only deals with the determination of the amount after making certain deductions which will be 'deemed to be the sum realized in the previous year' on account of agricultural income. The word 'deemed' is used only in view of the deductions to be made from actual realization. These deductions are set out under six categories (a) to (f), in section 5. The word 'deemed' is not used here in order to negative the natural meaning of the words which clearly indicate that the assessment must take place on the actual realizations made and not on the demands made. The word 'derived' also means actually derived and not nationally derived.