Deka, J. - (1.) THESE two connected rules Were issued at the instance of Snapper Tea Co. Ltd., who presented two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writs for quashing the orders of assessment of agricultural Income Tax for the years 1944 -45 and 1945 -46 passed against the Petitioners. Civil Rule No. 67/55 relates to the assessment for the year 1944 -45 and Civil Rule No. 68/55 relates to the assessment for the year 1945 -46. The points for consideration arising from these two applications are identical. The facts relating to these two applications arc in short that for the .periods in question the assessment of agricultural Income Tax was originally made under Section 20(4) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 (Assam Act IX of 1939) which provides that if the principal officer of any company, or other person fails to make a return under Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) of Section 19, as the case may be or, having made the return, fails 'to comply with all the terms of the notice issued under Sub -section (2) of this section, or to produce any evidence required under Sub -section (3) of this section, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer shall . make the assessment to the best of his judgment, and determine the sum payable by the Assessee on the basis of such assessment..........
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid assessments the Petitioners moved the learned Agricultural Income Tax Officer under Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment as provided under that section, which provides that Where an Assessee, or in case of a company the principal officer thereof, within one month from the service of a notice of demand issued as hereinafter provided satisfies the Agricultural Income Tax Officer that he was prevented by sufficient cause from making the return required by Section 19 or that he did not receive the notice issued under Sub -section (2) of Section 19 or Sub -section (2) of Section 20 or that he had not reasonable opportunity to comply or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the t mentioned notices the Agricultural Income Tax Officer shall cancel the assessment and proceed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of Section 20. It appears that the Petitioners had submitted returns for the assessment years 1944 -45 and 1945 -46 prior to the assessment under Section 20(4) . of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act but could not produce the accounts before the Agricultural Income Tax Officer and the "Central assessment copies that means copies of the order of assessment of Income Tax under the Indian Income Tax Act and the figures computed there under, - since there was an appeal pending from that assessment. The Petitioners further submit that they produced along with the account books the audited balance sheet too. Their contention is that the Agricultural Income Tax Officer even after re opening the case under Section 21 of the Act confined himself fan the purpose of assessment of agricultural income from tea to the figures of income as found by the Income Tax Officer in the assessment for the years 1944 -45 and 1945 -46 and made assessment thereon, treating 60% to be the agricultural income less the deductible costs and did not base his findings on the books of accounts or the balance sheet submitted, which was duly audited.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the Petitioners refers us to Section 20(3) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act which runs as follows: - (3) On the day specified in the notice under Sub -section (2) or as soon afterwards as may be the Agricultural Income Tax Officer after hearing such evidence as such person may produce and such other evidence as the Agricultural Income Tax Officer may require on specified points, shall, by,an order in writing, assess the total agricultural income of the Assessee and determine the sum payable by him on such assessment. The earned Advocate for the Petitioners contends that the Agricultural Income Tax Officer did not really exercise his judgment on the evidence as adduced in the case, but confined himself for the purpose of assessment to the figures as found by the Income Tax Officer for the identical years and that amounted, according to his contention, to failing to exercise jurisdiction as vested in the Agricultural Income Tax Officer by virtue of Section 20(3) of the Act.;