Notional bungalow occupation income is not agricultural income, and a revision cannot reopen an unchallenged assessment item after finality.

Notional income attributed to partners' occupation of bungalow estate buildings was not agricultural income because agricultural income must be actually derived from agricultural operations or agricultural property, and mere occupation does not generate such income. A revision under section 34 was also unavailable after the assessee chose not to challenge that assessment item in appeal and the appellate proceedings ended, because the unchallenged part of the assessment had attained finality and the revisional power could not be used to reopen it through another route. The writ petition therefore failed on both the income characterisation and maintainability of revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notional income attributed to the occupation of bungalows by the partners could be treated as agricultural income. (ii) Whether a revision under section 34 was maintainable after disposal of the appeal where the assessee had not challenged that part of the assessment in the appellate proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the notional income attributed to the occupation of bungalows by the partners could be treated as agricultural income.

Analysis: Income, for the purpose of agricultural income-tax, must be income actually derived from agricultural operations or agricultural property. Mere occupation of estate buildings by the proprietors or partners does not by itself generate income, and notional income cannot be equated with rent derived from agricultural activity.

Conclusion: The notional income from occupation of the bungalows was not liable to be treated as agricultural income.

Issue (ii): Whether a revision under section 34 was maintainable after disposal of the appeal where the assessee had not challenged that part of the assessment in the appellate proceedings.

Analysis: Section 34 permits revision subject to the statutory restrictions in sub-section (2), including the bar where an appeal against the order has been made to the Appellate Tribunal. Once the assessee chose not to contest the inclusion of the notional income before the appellate authorities and the appeal was disposed of, that part of the assessment attained finality. A revisional power cannot be used to reopen, through another channel, a matter deliberately left unchallenged in appeal, especially when the statute does not create such a post-disposal revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on that issue, and the assessee was precluded from reagitating it before the Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the assessee could not reopen, by revision, a part of the assessment that had been left unassailed in the appellate hierarchy and had thereby become final.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory revision cannot be used to reopen a matter that the assessee deliberately omitted to challenge in appeal after the appellate order has attained finality, and notional occupation-based income is not agricultural income unless it is actually derived from agricultural operations.

---