TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (9) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 5 of the Act provides for a determination of agricultural income, and section 6 provides for the computation of such income in two alternative ways : one method proceeds on the basis of a certain multiple of rent and the other on the gross proceeds of sale of the produce of the lands. The section, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as follows : " 6. (1) The agricultural income mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 shall, at the option of the assessee, be computed in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) : Provided that an assessee who has once exercised his option shall not be entitled to vary the method of computation except with the permission of the Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be issued against the Board of Revenue and the Collector of Pilibhit, respondents herein, directing them to issue suitable forms to the appellants for submitting returns of their agricultural income as per the method of computation provided by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 6 for the year 1951-52 and (2) a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Board of Revenue refusing permission to the appellants to vary the method of computation under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6. The two writ petitions were heard together and dismissed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated September 9, 1952. The appellants then asked for and obtained certificates of fitness under article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals as also the two writ petitions must be decided on the basis of the provisions of section 6 as it stood before the coming into force of Act XIV of 1953. The main contention of the appellants in the two appeals is that the High Court did not correctly construe the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6. The High Court said that the substantive part of sub-section (1) no doubt gave an unfettered right to an assessee to choose any of the two methods of computation ; but this right was cut down by the proviso, which said that an assessee who had once exercised an option could not vary the method of computation except with the permission of the Board of Revenue. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the restriction imposed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has to furnish a return by a prescribed date and once he has furnished the return, he can, under sub-section (4) of section 15, only correct the mistakes or fill in the omissions in the return and for that purpose submit a revised return ; he has been given no right to vary the method of computation after he has filed a return for the year of assessment. If the proviso gave such a right of variation within the assessment year, one would expect this to be mentioned in section 15(4). On the interpretation sought to be put upon the proviso by the appellants, there would be a conflict between the proviso and section 15(4) of the Act. On behalf of the appellants our attention has been drawn to the proviso to section 2(11)(i)(a) and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Board, who endorsed the note, with his own opinion, to the Senior Member of the Board. B. V. Bhadkamkar, who was then the Senior Member of the Board, signed below the endorsement of the Deputy Secretary in token of his approval of the orders proposed. The note stated that though the multiple method was easier and non-controversial, in some cases the assessee wanted a variation in order to reduce the amount payable to Government as tax in any one year. The administrative difficulties of such a variation were adverted to in the note. It is submitted that the Senior Member of the Board merely signed the note ; he did not indicate what reasons led him to refuse permission to the appellants. The High Court has pointed out that when a senior....