The Board took the view that an assessee having exercised the option once in Form No.
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 companyputed under s.6 2 a instead of under s. 6 2 b as previously intimated.
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition by his judgment and order dated October 13, 1961 accepted the companytention of the appellant that it was open to it to change its option with the filing of a subsequent or fresh return with the result that the impugned orders were quashed and he issued a direction to the Assessing Authority that it shall proceed to assess the appellant assessee in accordance with the option expressed by it on November 8, 1958.
The Assessing Authority thereupon went into the question of change of option and by its order dated November 17, 1959 held that the appellant had numberright to change its option and that the assessment had to be made in accordance with s.6 2 b of the Act.
From the Judgment and order dated 27 9 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Thereupon, the appellant assessee applied for inspection of the record before the Assessing Authority, but the application was rejected on October 18, 1955 against which a revision was filed by the appellant before the Revision Board and on April 29, 1958 the Board allowed the revision application and the Assessing Authority was directed to permit the inspection of the record.
1382 of 1960 filed in the Allahabad High Court the appellant challenged the validity of the two orders, one of the Assessing Authority and the other of the Revision Board and sought a mandamus directing the Assessing Authority to assess the appellants tax liability after companyputing its agricultural income for the relevant previous year in accordance with s.6 2 a of the Act instead of under s.6 2 b of the Act.
agricultural income for the previous year i.e. 1361 Fasli companyputed 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.
However, numberwithstanding the filing of the aforesaid two returns, one on November 27, 1954 and the revised return on April 4, 1955, on April 7, 1955 the Assessing Authority served upon the appellant assessee a numberice under s.15 3 requiring the latter to furnish within period specified in the numberice 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 alongwith such numberice a provisional estimate of the assessees.
1,79,543/5/9, a declaration in the prescribed Form No.
But after the reversal of the judgment.
The respondents preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court being Special Appeal No.
Of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench that assessment order became ineffective and a fresh assessment order was made on July 30, 1969 in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench by adopting the method of companyputation indicated in s.6 2 b .
Thereupon the appellant took inspection of the record, but on November 8, 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 numberice dated April 7, 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.
On April 4, 1955 the appellant assessee discovering some mistake in the said re turn filed a revised return under s. 15 4 of the Act showing the net income at Rs.
Initially the appellant preferred an appeal.
I.T. 2 selecting the method of companyputation.
By a Writ Petition, being Civil Misc.
to this Court being Civil Appeal No.1249 NT of 1968 on the strength of a certificate issued by the Allahabad High Court under Art.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for the Respondent in C.A. 1946/ 72.
It appears that neither the original return filed on November 27, 1954 number the revised return filed on April 4, 1955 was found to be companyrect or companyplete by the Assessing Authority and, therefore, on April 14, 1955 the Assessing Authority served a numberice 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.
95 of 1962 and the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and restored the orders passed by the Assessing Authority and the Revision Board.
98,854 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 unders.s 2 b was adhered to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. These appeals by certificate under Art.
38,947/ and objections were invited.
For the assessment year 1954 55 a return of the agricultural income for the relevant previous year ending June 30, 1954 1361 Fasli was filed under s. 15 2 of the Act on November 27, 1954 by the appellant assessee, returning a net income of Rs.
1249 of 1968 and 1946 of 1972.
Alongwith the return a declaration in Form No.
95/62.
2,07,923/9/ .
1,06,664.
A.I.T. 2 was also filed indicating the option to be assessed in accordance with s. 6 2 b of the Act.
The Assessing Authority without first deciding the question whether the appellant was entitled to change the option as sought, by its order dated March 27, 1959 made a best judgment assessment in accordance with the method under s.6 2 b of the Act and assessed the appellants income at Rs.
Writ No.
The appellant went in revision before the Agricultural Income Tax Revision Board challenging the said order of the Assessing Authority but the Revision Board by its order dated January 27, 1960 upheld the decision of the Assessing Authority.
2,88,488.46 nP. The appellant challenged the assessment order ill an appeal to the Commissioner who by his order dated July, 1, 1959 allowed the appeal, set aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority with a direction that he should first dispose of the question relating to change of option which the appellant had claimed he was entitled to have and then make the assessment in accordance with law after allowing the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence in support of its return.
On September 29, 1955, however, another numberice was given to the appellant assessee stating that its income had escaped assessment to the tune of Rs.
S. Desai and Rameshwar Nath for the Appellant In CA 1946/ 72 .
In its judgment dated September 27, 1965, the Division Bench took the view that the assessee had numberright to change the option.
Against that assessment order dated July 30, 1969 the appellant preferred ar.
