P.Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) This is a reference under Section 63 (2) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act of two questions of law, made by the Agricultural Income-tax 'Appellate Tribunal in compliance with an order passed by this Court on an application made by the nssessee. The date of that order, as given in the Statement of the Case, appears to he wrong, because if the order was made on 23-7-1954 and received by the Tribunal on 17-11-l954, as stated, the Statement of the Case could not have been prepared and signed on 14-12-1953.
(2.) The facts have not been very fully or clearly set out in the Statement of the Case. Nor do they appear from the appellate order which begins by stating the two grounds of law urged by the assessee and ends with an expression of the Tribunal's views upon them. It is said in the Statement of the Case that in order to enable the Tribunal to prepare it, "the parties were given an opportunity of collating the necessary materials centering round the two questions of law." Nothing could have been less correct. The Tribunal ought to know that the findings of fact made by it, if properly made, are final; that those findings are to be made in the appellate order; that only the facts so found are to be set out in the Statement of the Case and submitted to the Court; that findings made at the appellate stage cannot be added to or varied at the stage of making a reference, except the clerical errors may be corrected or some necessary clarification supplied;" and that this Court's opinion can be sought only on the basis of the facts found by the appellate order and only on questions of law arising out of them. The Tribunal should therefore always find all the necessary facts by their appellate order, so that they may state them to this Court in case they have to make a reference under Section 63 (1) or they are asked to make a reference under Section 63 (2). It is altogether wrong not to find and set out all the necessary facts in the appellate order and to ask the parties to collate them at the reference stage.
(3.) So far as they may be ascertained the facts appear to be as follows. The assessec has a fairly extensive area of khas lands which he cultivates through bargadars. The lands appear to be paddy lands. The terms of the engagement with the bargadars have not been stated cither in the Statement of the Case or in the appellate order, but it would appear from the order of the Income-tax Officer, which speaks of the asscssce's share of the yield from the lands as "his half share", that the bargadars were to take one-half of the produce and the assessee was to take the other half. There was again, a special system for determining the quantum of the produce raised from the land. The system was that every year, before the harvesting, a list, called the Kuth list, was prepared, in which were entered estimates of the probable yield from the lands under barga cultivation, Tehsil by Tehsil. In the case of each hargadar, the estimate was made by an officer of the assesses, the bargadar himself and some responsible persons of the locality, all of whom signed the list and on the same being approved by the assessee's sadar office, collections were made from the bargadars according to the entries in the list, as finalised. The list was binding on both the assessee and the bargadars which obviously meant that the assessee could not say that more crops had been grown on the lands and, likewise, the bargadars could not say that less had been grown. The present reference relates to the assessment for the accounting year 1356 B. Section , relative to the assessment year 1950-51. In that year, the assessee's share of the paddy raised from his barga lands was 2,414 maunds but, actually, he was able to realise only 1,615 maunds, 25 seers and 6 chitaks. Of that quantity, he sold 46 maunds and 19 seers during the accounting year to a private party for Rs. 354 and 6 annas. The balance was consumed by the members of his family and his staff. The open market rate during the accounting year was Rs. 9/12/- per maund, but the procurement rate, i. e., the rate at which Government paid for the paddy, caused to be compulsorily sold to them, was lower, being Rs. 7/8/- per maund.;