Retrospective repeal of an exemption supports taxation of received agricultural income and permits reassessment for escaped income.

Sale proceeds of coffee produced and sold before 1 April 1954 were taxable when received in the relevant previous years, because the charging provision and section 4 brought agricultural income received in that year into the total agricultural income, and no additional time limit could be read into the definition. The earlier exclusion in rule 10 could not displace the statutory charge after its retrospective deletion. The amount omitted at the original assessment was also held to have escaped assessment, since section 35 applied broadly to income escaping assessment "for any reason", including a later retrospective change in law that removed the basis of the original non-taxation. The reassessment was therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sale proceeds of coffee produced and sold before 1 April 1954 but received in the relevant previous years were liable to be included in the total agricultural income chargeable to tax under the Act. (ii) Whether the amount excluded at the original assessment under rule 10, which was later deleted retrospectively, had escaped assessment so as to justify reassessment under section 35.

Issue (i): Whether sale proceeds of coffee produced and sold before 1 April 1954 but received in the relevant previous years were liable to be included in the total agricultural income chargeable to tax under the Act.

Analysis: The charging provision taxed the total agricultural income of the previous year, and section 4 treated agricultural income received in the previous year from a plantation within the State as part of that total. The Court held that no further time factor could be read into the definition merely because the produce had been raised and sold before 1 April 1954. Rule 10, which had earlier excluded coffee proceeds of earlier periods, could not control the statutory charge once it had been retrospectively deleted. The fact that the receipts related to earlier crops did not alter their character as income received in the relevant previous years.

Conclusion: The amounts were taxable and were rightly included in the petitioner's total agricultural income.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount excluded at the original assessment under rule 10, which was later deleted retrospectively, had escaped assessment so as to justify reassessment under section 35.

Analysis: Section 35 was construed broadly because it applied where, for any reason, chargeable income had escaped assessment. At the original assessment, the amount was not taxed only because rule 10 then stood in the assessee's favour; after its retrospective repeal, the legal basis of the exclusion disappeared. The Court held that the later change in law brought the case within the phrase "for any reason," and reassessment was not confined to situations of mere omission or clerical error.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 35 was valid and the reassessment was justified.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on both the substantive tax issue and the reassessment issue, so the challenge to the orders could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a fiscal charge framed on the basis of income received in the previous year, receipts from earlier produce remain taxable when received in that previous year, and income can be said to have escaped assessment under a broad reassessment provision where a later retrospective change in law removes the basis of an earlier non-assessment.

---