Central computation of tea income prevails; State officers cannot recompute it under a delegated rule.

Where the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act adopts the Central computation of tea income, State officers cannot recompute the agricultural-income component already determined under the Income-tax Act and Rules. The statutory scheme, including the relevant provisions of the State Act, showed that the State levy was intended to follow the Central assessment, and the Act did not confer a power to sit in judgment over that computation. A delegated rule cannot enlarge the parent Act or create an inconsistent power; accordingly, the proviso to rule 5, to the extent it authorised recomputation by State officers, was ultra vires. Reassessments based on such recomputation could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 authorised State officers to recompute the agricultural income from tea already computed by the Central officers under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax Rules, 1962. (ii) Whether the proviso to rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, which empowered such recomputation, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 authorised State officers to recompute the agricultural income from tea already computed by the Central officers under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: Agricultural income from tea is a composite income governed by the constitutional definition in article 366(1), the Central Act, and the State Act. The scheme of the State Act, including the Explanation to section 2(a)(2), the second proviso to section 8, and section 20D, shows that the State levy is meant to follow the agricultural-income component as computed under the Central enactment. Section 49, even with its proviso allowing examination of papers produced before the Central authorities, does not in terms confer a power to sit in judgment over or recompute the Central assessment.

Conclusion: The State Act did not authorise State officers to recompute the agricultural income already determined by the Central officers.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, which empowered such recomputation, was valid.

Analysis: The rule-making power under section 50 is confined to carrying out the purposes of the Act and cannot enlarge its scope or create a power inconsistent with the parent statute. Since the Act itself contemplated adoption of the Central computation, the proviso to rule 5, to the extent it enabled State officers to reject and recompute the Central computation, exceeded delegated power and was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The proviso to rule 5, to the extent it permitted recomputation by State officers, was ultra vires the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939.

Final Conclusion: The State authorities could not disregard the Central computation of tea income for the purpose of agricultural income-tax, and the impugned reassessments could not stand. The matter was directed to be reassessed on the basis of the Central computation, subject to the State's right to seek appropriate relief under the Central Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent taxing statute adopts the computation made under the Central income-tax law for determining agricultural income, a delegated rule cannot confer on State officers a power to recompute that income inconsistently with the statutory scheme.

---