TMI Blog1960 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That section mentions two alternative methods of computation, and by the substantive part of sub-section (1) gives the assessee an option to adopt any one of the two methods ; then comes the proviso which says that once the option is exercised, there can be no variation without the permission of the Board of Revenue. The appellants are seeking to read the words " in any one year " after the word " computation " in the proviso, and this they cannot be allowed to do. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 5-9-1960 - Judge(s) : S. K. DAS., M. HIDAYATULLAH., K. C. DAS GUPTA., J. C. SHAH., N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... district or portion thereof : Provided that the Board of Revenue may direct that the multiple for calculating income from land newly brought under cultivation shall for the specified number of years be such lower figure as may be specified, or (b) the income shall be the gross proceeds of sale of all the produce of the land subject to the following deductions (then the deductions are stated). " The appellants sent their returns computing their agricultural income for the assessment years 1948-1949 and 1949-1950 according to the method of computation provided by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6, that is, on the basis of the gross proceeds of sale of all the produce of the lands under their cultivation, subject to the dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns of agricultural income for the year 1952-53 also came, and the appellants again made an application for permission to file returns according to the method provided in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 6. This permission was not granted, and the appellants then filed the two writ petitions in this court praying for the issue of a similar writ of mandamus as was asked for in the High Court, as respects the year 1952-1953. We may state here that by the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (U. P. Act XIV of 1953), the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 was deleted and a new proviso substituted therefor, the effect of which, it is stated, was to give to the assessee full freedom to choose any of the two meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd meant what it said, that once the option was exercised, no variation could be made without the permission of the Board of Revenue. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. It is indeed true, as has been, pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, that the Act like the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, contemplates an assessment for each year on the income of the previous year. That does not necessarily mean that the restriction imposed by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 is limited to one year only. The proviso must be construed with reference to the language used and the scheme of section 6. That section mentions two alternative methods of computation, and by the substantive part of sub-section (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t refers to the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, and no question of option arises therein. The proviso to sub-clause (i)(a) of section 2(11) enacts that once an assessee has been assessed in respect of a particular source of income, or where in respect of a business, profession or vocation newly set up an assessee has exercised the option under sub-clause (c) although no assessment may have yet been made or could have been made as a result of the exercise of the option, the assessee cannot in respect of that source, business, profession or vocation change his previous year except with the consent of the Income-tax Officer and upon such conditions as the Income-tax Officer may impose. We do not see how this provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, it has been contended that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 gives an unfettered discretion to the Board to give or refuse permission, and lays down no principles for its guidance ; therefore, the proviso is capable of discriminatory application and is violative of the guarantee of equal protection of the laws in article 14 of the Constitution. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. In Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar this court had said that a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where the discretion is confided not to a petty official but to a high authority. Moreover, it appears to us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
