DELffi CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LID v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

first deciding The Assessing Authority, without the question whether the appellant was entitled to change the option as sought, by its order dated March 27, 1959 made a best judgment assessment in accordance with the method under s.6(2) (b) of the Act and assessed the appellant's income at Rs. 4,82,231.05 nP on which the tax liabi lity was assessed at Rs. 2,88,488.46 nP. The appellant challenged the assessment order in an appeal to the Commissioner who by his order dated July, 1, 1959 allowed the appeal, set aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority with a direction that he should first dispose of the question celating to change of option which the appellant had claimed he was entitled to have and make the assessment in accordance with law after allowing the appel in support of its return. The lant an opportunity to lead evidence Assessing Authority thereupon went into the question of change of option and by its order dated November 17, 1959 held that the appel lant had no right to change its option and that the assessment had to be made in accordance with s.6(2) (b) of the Act. The appellant went in revision before the Agricultural Income-Tax Revision Board challenging the said order of the Assessing Authority bnt the Revision Board by its order dated January 27, 1960 upheld the decision of the Assessing Authority. The Board took the view that an assessee having exercised the option once in Form No. A.I.T.-2 filed alongwith the original return could not change that option subsequently while filing anothec return or revised return under the Act. By a Writ Petition, being Civil Misc. Writ No. 1382 of 1960 filed in the Allahabad High Court the appellant challenged the validity of the two orders, one of the Assessing Authority and the other of the the Assessing Revision Board and sought a mandamus directing Authority to assess the appellant's tax liability after computing its agricultural income for the relevant previous year in accordance with s.6(2) (a) of the Act instead of undec s.6(2) (b) of the Act. The learned Siugle Judge who heard the writ petition by his judgment and order dated October 13, 1961 accepted the contention of the appel lant that it was open to it to change its option with the filing of a sub£equent or fresh return with the result that the impugned orders were quashed and he issued a direction to the Assessing Authority A B c D E F G H • • • • \ A B c D E F G n 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.R. that it shall proceed to assess the appellant-assessee in accordance with the option expressed by it on November 8, 1958. The respon dents preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court being Special Appeal No. 95 of 1962 and the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and res tored the orders passed by the Assessing Authority and the Revision the Divisicin Board. right to change the Bench took the view that the assessee had no option. In its judgment dated September 27, 1965, Initially the appellant preferred an appeal to this Court being Civil Appeal No.1249(NT) of 1968 on the strength of a certificate issued by the Allahabad High Court under Art. 133(1)(a) of t<he Constitution but at the time of the hearing of that appeal this Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents to maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the High Court was not competent to grant the certificate under Art.133(1) (a) in as much as the issue before the High Court was incapable of valuation and the order appealed against could not come within the scope of the said provision; this Court, therefore, revoked the said certificate and sent the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration inasmuch as the appellant's prayer for grant of certificate in the High Court was made both under Arts. 133(l)(a) and 133(l)(e) of the Constitu tion and directed the High Court to consider the prayer for grant of the certificate under the latter provision. Thereafter the High Cour-t by its order dated April 18, 1972 granted the certificate under Art. 133(1) (c) on the ground that the question of law involved was of substantial importance and also of great public importance and it is on the strength of such certificate that was issuea by the High Court that the Civil Appeal No.1946 (NT) of 1972 has been filed by the ftppellant in this Court. However, in both the appeals the principal question raised is whether an assessee who has once exercised his option in regard to the method of computation of his agricultural in come by filing the requisite declaration in the prescribed Form No. A.I.T.-2 alongwith his first or initial return can change the eption under the Act? In may be stated at outset that after the judgment was delivered by the learned single Judge of the Allahabad i-Itgh Court on October 13, 1961 answering the point in favour of Inc a5'cssee, the Assessing Auth0rily, since no stay was obtained during the pendcncy of Special Appeal No. 95 of 1962, proceeded with the assessment of the appellant on the basis of that the assessment on judgment and completed December 19, 1962, in accordance with s. 6(2)ia) of the Act and ' ·~. • JI f DELHI CLOTH MILLS.v. u. P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, l.) 115 we are informed at the Bar that the appellant has paid the tax reversal of the according to that assessment order. But alter the judgment of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench assessment order became ineffective and a fresh assessment order was !Ilade on July 30, 1969 in accordance with the judgment of the Divi sion Bench by adopting the method of computation indicated in s.6 (2) (b). Against that assessment order dated July 30, 1969 the appellant preferred an a_ppeal but the same was dismissed on June 23, 1970 and n revision against the dismissal of that appeal is pending before the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Board. The position, therefore, would be that if the appellant succeeds in these appeals the assessment order made against it on July 30, 1969 and which has been confirmed in appeal on June 23, 1970 and which is the 'abject-matter of revision before the Board will be rendered ineffective and the assessment ordet" made against it on December 19, 1962 will revive and hold the field and the appellant shall be taken to have complied with the demand under that order but in case the appellant fails in these appeals the appellate order dated June 23, 1970 subject to the result of the revi sion will become operative. In the first place he contended Counsel for the appellant raised two or three contentions before us in support of the appeals. 'Under s. 6 ( 1) of the Act an option :to choose one or the other method of computation of agricultura_l income has been given to the assessee so that he could choose whichever method was advantageous to him and the assessee would be entitl<:d to exercise such option every time he files a return, be it the initial or first return or a subsequent return or .a revised return, in regard to his agricultural income of any particular previous year, especially, as Rule 5 of the U.P. Agricultural Income tax Rules, 1949 makes it incumbent upon the assessee to file a dec laration in Form A.l.T.-2 indicating his option alongwith "his return of income". He urged that this position becomes all the more clear if the provisions of the present s.6 and Rule 5 are considered vis-a-vis the said provisions before they were amended. Secondly, he urged that in the instant case in spite of the appellant having filed its first return of November 27, 1954 and its revised return of April 4, 1955, the Assessing Authority had served upon it a notice under s.15(3) alongwith a statement showing provisional estimate of the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs.2,07,923-9 annas in accordance with s.6(2) (a) for the relevant previous year ending June 30, 1954 (1361 Fasli), pursuant to which the appellant filed a fresh return on Novem ber 8, 195& for the said previous year indicating in the accompanying B c D E F G H • • 116 SUPREME COURT REPORJ;S [1979] 2 S.C.R. A B declaration in Form No. A.I.T.-2 the option for computation in accor dance with s.6(2) (a) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Autho rity h;id to make the assessment in accordance with s.6(2)(a) of the Act. Thirdly, he contended that in any event since the Assessing Authority after the issuance of the notice under s. 16(2) had proceed ed to make a best judgment assessment under s.16 ( 4) it had no option but to make the assessment with due regard to the statement of pro visional estimate served under s.15(3-B) uowithstanding any option exercised .under s.6(1) of the Act. , c D E F H filed alongwith "his return of On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court by contending that the option conferred upon an assessee by s. 6 is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the only provision is that contaiged in Rule 5 which speaks of a declaration indicating the option being income" which could only be when the assessee filed his first or initial return and there is no provision for filing such a declaration alongwith any subsequent return or revised return. He urged tha~ only s.15(4) speaks of filing a revised return which could be done only if asie11ee discovered any wrong statement in the return previously filed by him under iub-i. 1 or 2 or 3 of s. 15 but a statement made in such previously filed return does not become wrong merely because the asses see had selected the wrong option; in other words, the assessee does not get the right to file a revised return under s.15 ( 4) merely because he wishes to change the option. He, therefore, urged that in the absence of any positive provision being contained in the Act or the Rules conferring upon the assessee the right to change the option, the rigl1t of the optio11 once exercised must be held to have become final. He, further urged that the aspect whether '111 assessee will have a righ~ to change the option by filing a fresh declaration along with a return ftled in response to the notice served under s. 15 (3) of the Act, notwithstanding his having filed a return under s. 15(1) or s. 15(2) and having exercised his option at time, was the appellant and as it now inasmuch as 1958 appellant was in r~e to that notice or was within time specified in In any event, he urged that sub-ss. (1), (2) and (3) of that notice. s. 15 are independent provisions and the notice under s.15(3) does not give an assesse~ any right to change the option. He further urged that in the instant case the assessee could be said to have acquiesced in the proceedings that were taken by the Assessing Autrority on the raised before the appellant should not be permitted the High Court by is no material on filed by on November 8, to show to raise record return DELHI CLOTH MILLS v. u. P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 117 two earlier returns which were filed by him based on ~.6(2)(b) and as such the appellant could not be allowed to change the option ini- tially exercised by it. A .. In order to decide the main que•tion that has been raised in these appeals it will be necessary to refer to the provisions of s.6 and Rules 5. 6 and 7, as they stood originally and as they st~nd now after the amendments. Originally s.6, which dealt with computation of agri cultural income and conferred an option on the assessee to select one or the other of the two methods of computation mentioned therein ran thus : ·--~ "6. Computation of agricultural income.-(1) The agri cultural income mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section ( 1) ot section 2 shall, at the option of the assessee, be computed m accordance with clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2): Provided that an asseseee who has once exercised his opcion shall not be eniitled to vary the method of computa- tion except with the permission of the Board of Revenue. 12) (a) Subject to such deduction in respect of agricul tural calamities as may be prescribed, the income shall be such multiple, not exceeding 7t per cent, deemed to be of the rent of the land calculated at (he latest sanctioned rent-rates applicable to hereditary tenants of similar class of soil, as the Board of Revenue :may fix for each 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: (Here followed sub-clauses (i) to (xiii) specifying the deduction). (3) If the assessing authority is satisfied that the pro ceeds of sale have not been correctly shown by the assessee or that any portion of the produce has not actual!y been sold, be may assess the value of the produce for purposes of clause (b) of sub-section ( 1) of section 2 by determining, to tbe best of his judgment, the amount of produce and the market value thereof." B c D E F G H A B c 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979) 2 S.C.R. Original Rules 5. 6 and 7 of the U.P. A!lficultural Income Tax Rule.t, 1949, framed under ~.44 of the Act ran. thus: "5. An assessee shall, along with his first retun1 of in come, file a declaration in Form No.A.I.T.-2 indicating his option under sub-section ( 1) of section 6.

#6. The declaration filed by an assessee under rule 5 shall be preserved by the asse~sing authority in a separate guard file. '7. Where an assessee desires to vary the method of com putation indicated under rule 5, he shall, before the first day of August of the year in respect of which assessment is to be made. present an application for permi.ssion in that behalf to the assessing authority addressed to the Board of Revenue and the fonner shall without unnecessary delay forward the same together with such remarks as it may consider proper 1 o the Board of Revenue for necessary orders." lt may be stated that the aforesaid provisions came up for con sideration before Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kr. Jyoti Sarup v. Board of Revenue, U.P. (Lucknow) and Anr. (') and Justice Mukherji took the view that "this proviso (meaning the proviso to sub-s. (I) of s. 6) means that once and only once during the course of an assessee's "assessable life", can he, unfettered, exer cise the option given to him under s.6(1) of the Act and that if once he has exercised his option, he cannot, without the permission of the Board, take the other alternative." Justice Bind Basni Prasad, the other Member of the Bench, observed that "My interpretation of s.6 (1) is that after the COl!llllencement of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, an asscssee has once selected one method of computation of agricultural income he cannot vary it subsequently in any year without the permission of the Board of Revenue. The proviso is not limited in the course of a year". in its application to variation of such method Thereafter, the Legislature thought of amending these provisions. By tbe Amending Act XVIII of 1954 the aforesaid proviso to s.6(1) was deleted with effect from July l, 1954 and an altogether different proviso unconnected with the option was substituted. By a Notifica tion No. 2590/I-C289-C-53 dated August 29, 1953 the word "first" occurring between the words "his" and "return" was deleted (I) (1952) 50 Allahabad Law Journal 557. D E F G H DLLH! CLOTH MILLS v. u. P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 119 Rule 5 with effect from the date of the N otificatic>n. Rules 6 and 7 A were totally deleted. The amended s. 6 as it stands today runs thus : "6. Computation of agricultural income.-(!) The agri cultural income mentioned in sub-clause (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 the agricultural income as aforsesaid for lea gardens shall be computed in accordance with clause (b) of sub-section (2). (2) (a) Subject to such deductions in respect of agricul t:iral calamities as may be prrscribed, the income from the land shall be deemed t(} be an amount equal to its rent multi plied by such multiple not exceeding 12t as the Land Reforms Commissioner may fix, and different multiples may be fi>.ed for different districts or portion' of district and for different classes of groves and orchards: Provided that the Land Reforms Commissioner may direct that the multiple for calculating income from land newly brought under cultivation shall for a specified number of years be such lower figure as may be prescribed. Explanation.-In this section rent shall be de!'!med to be an amount calculated at the latest sanctioned rent rates applicable to hereditary tenants of the highest class of soil in the village in the case of orchards and groves and of simibr class of soil in other cases. ( b) the income shall be the gross proceeds of sale of all the produce of the land subject to the following deductions: (Here followed sub-clauses (i) to (xiii) specifying the deductions). ( 3) If the assessing authority is satisfied that the pro ceeds of sale have not been correctly shown by the assessee or that any portion of the produce has not actually been sold, he may assess the value of the produce for purposes of clause (b) of sub-section ( 1) of Section 2 by determining. tu the best of his judgment, the amount of produce and the market value thereof." B c D E F G H 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. A The amended Rule 5 as it now stands runs thus : "5. An assessee shall, along with his return of income, indicating his option file a declaratioJ! in Form A.I.T.-2 under sub-section ( 1) of Section 6." B The Form No. A.l.T.-2 of declaration of the option for computation of income under s.6 reads thus: "In pursuance of Section 6 (1), I, ............ do here- by declare that I have elected the method of computation of a~i:icultural income provided by Section 6(2)(a) /6(2.)(b) and have computed my income accordingly." It seems to us clear that s. 6 as originally framed gave an asses~ee the right to exercise the option, unfettered, only once after the com mencement of the Act if he once sel!'c_\ed one 1J1ethod of computa tion of agricultural income he could not vary it subsequently in any year without the permission of the Board of Revenue which was given l!bsolute discretion to grant or to refuse such permission. At any rat~, that was how the original unamended provisions were authori tatively interpreted by the Allahabad High Court. Relying upon the deletion of the original proviso to s.6(1) of the Act by the Amending Act XVIll of 1954 and the deletion of the word "first" which occurred originally in Rule 5 as also the deletion of Rules 6 and 7, counsel for jhe appellant contended that whatever may have been the position under the original s. 6 and original Rules 5, 6 and 7, under the amended s.6 read with the amended Rule 5 it would be clear that there is no restriction on the assessee's right to change the option and it would be open to an assessee not merely to change his option every year but eV@..J! to change his option during the year by filing a fresh return or a revised return for the same year indicating the change in the declaration accompanying such fresh return or revised re.turn provided, of course, it is do11e before the assessment is completed by In our view, there is considerable force in the Assessing Authority. this contention for the rea~on that whatever restrictions had been imposed on the change of option by the original proviso to s.6(1) have been removed and the concept of "first return" is deleted from the expression "his return of income" Rule 5. That being so, occurring in Rule 5 would apply to any of rcturr.s contemplated U.'lder s.15 of the Act, namely, (1) a return filed in pursuance of the general notice issued and published by the Collector under s.15 (1); (2) a return filed by the Principal Officer of a Company under sec tion 15(2) read withs. 21; (3) a return filed in pursuance of indivi dual notice served upon an assessee by the Assessing Authority under c D E F G H ' " ,. .., 1-- >---- .. { .. .. .... ' DELHI CLOTH MILLS v. u. P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, !.) 121 ~.15(3) and (4) a return or a revised return filed by an assessee under s. 15 ( 4), provided that in the first three cases the return is filed within time specified in the notice or the rule or within the extended time granted by the Assessing Authority and in the last case the re vised return is filed on account of discovery of a wrong statement in In the previous return and is filed before the assessment is complete. fact, Rule 5 is obliga!_ory and makes it incumbent upon an assessee to file along with his return of income a declaration in Form No. A.I.T.- 2 indicating his option under s. 6(1) of the Act and as such the exer cise of such oJl_tion including a change of the option indicated in the declaration filed along with a subsequent return or a fresh return or a revised return will be valid provided the return itself is validly sub In this view of the matter it is not possible to accept the lllitted. view of the Division Bench of the High Court th!it if 011ce option is exercised by an assessee by filing the requisite declaration along with his return for a particular year_ he will have no right to chauge his optio11 by filing a fresh return or a revised return before the assess ment is made for that year. Turning to the factual aspects in the case the main question that arises is whether the return filed by the appellant on November 8, 1958 was in pursuance of the notice served by the Assessing Authority upon the appellant under s.15(3) of the Act or whether it was a re vised return filed under s.15 ( 4) of the Act and this question assumes significance because it was along with ibis return that the assessee bad filed a declar<ttion in Form No.A.I.T.-2 indicating a change in the option and praying that the computation of its agricultural income should be made in accordance with s. 6 (2) of the Act instead of under s.6f2) (b) as mentioned in the declarations filed alongwith two earlier returns dated November 27, 1954 and April 4. 1955. !t is obvious that if the return dated November 8, 1958 was filed under s. 15(4) then in order to avail of the change of the option the appellant will have to show that it was really a revised return in the sense that the same had been filed because of a wrong statement discovered in the earlier returns filed by him. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly taken the view that a wrong statement in the earlier returns does not mean selection of a wrong option by the assessee; in other words, the assessee does get the right to file a revised return under s. 15 ( 4) merely becanse he wishes to change the option. Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the fresh return filed by the appellant on November 8, 1958 was not a revised return under s.15 { 4) at all but was a return filed in response to the notice that was served upon it by the Assessing Authority on April 7, 1955 under 9-817SCI79 A B c D E F G H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.R. A B c. D E F G H In this behalf counsel for the respondent did s.15(3) of the Act. make a grievance before us that there was no material on record to show whether, in fact, the return filed on November 8, 1958 was in response to the notice served under s.15 (3) and if so, whether the same was filed within time or the extended time, if nny, granted by the Assessing Authority. The hearing of the appeal was, therefore, adjourned to enable both the parties particularly the Revenue which will be possessing the records to produce material in that behalf and 'at the resumed bearing thouih no material by way of assessment re cords of files in the custody of th,e Assessing Authority was produced by the Revenue, the appeJ!.ant Qlaced on record a copy of the return dated November 7, 1958 (which was filed on November 8, 1958) together with a copy of the declaration in the Form No.A.I.T.-2 and the forwarding letter. The forwarding letter dated November 7, 1958 clearly shows !hat the return was filed in response to the notice dated April 7, 1955 served upon the appellant under s.15(3) of the Act. The sait1 letter in terms referred to the notice dated April 7, 1955 under s.15 (3) as also to the statement of provisional estimate of agri cultural income for the relevant previous year 1953-54 (1361 Fasli) prepared under s. 6(2) (a) read with s. 15(3-B) accompanying the notice and further stated that the appellant had decided, in order to avoid further prolonged litigation, to accept the provisional estimate of agricultural income under s. 6 (2) (a) (subject only to necessary corrections ,is regards area and classification of soil etc.) and to suffer that basis and requested the Assessing agricultural income tax on Authority to complete the assessment in accordance with s. 6(2) (a) of the Act. It is, therefore, clelll" that the return filed by the appellant on November 8, 1958 was in response to the notice served upon it by the Assessing Authority under s.15(3). Moreover, the said return was rejected by the Assessing Authority not on the gronnd that it had been filed beyond time but on the ground that the appellant had no right to change its option which clearly suggests that the return was treated by the Assessing Authority as having been filed within time but the same was rejected on merits holding th"t the appellant was not en!itled to change its option. It is thus clear that the return filed by the assessee on November 8, 1958 was not a revised return under s.15 ( 4) but a fresh return filed within time in response to notice under s.15(3) served upon it by the Assessing Authority and as such the appellant was entitled to change its option and have computation of its agricultural income made in accordance with s.6(2)(a) of the Act The fact that the appellant had produced wme evidence in pursuance of notice received under s.16 (2) in relation to its earlier returns or that it took inspection of the records of the Assessing Authority can- ~- .. t { DELHI CLOTH MILLS v. u. P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 123 I not and does not amount to acquisance or waiver of its right to file a A declaration indicating its option a fresh long with the return validity filed in response to the notice served under s. 15(3) of the Acl. • · ' Apart from the aforesaid position there is yet one more aspect to which we would like to refer in relation to the question rais~d before us in these appeals and that arises in view of the provisions of s.16(4) B of the Act under which the Assessing Authority makes its best judg In this connection ss.15(3), 15(3-B) and 16(4) ment assessment. of the Act will have to be considered together. Section 15 (3) runs thus: ... _,_ I ...... ' I "15(3) In the case of any person whose total agricul tural income is, in the opinion of the assessing authority, such amount as to render such person liable to payment of agricultural income-tax in any year, he may s_erve in ·hat year a notice in the prescribed f01;m requiring such person to fur- nish within such period, not being less than thirty days as may be specified in the notice, a return in th.e prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth ( alongwith such other particulars as may bti provided for in the notice), his total agricultural income during the pre- vious year: c D Provided that the assessing authority may in his discre- E lion extend the date for delivery of the return." Section 15(3-B) runs thus: "15(3-B) Alongwith the notice under sub-section (3) the assessing authority shall send a. statement ~howil!g a pro visional estimate of the agricultural income which in bis opinion accrned to the person during the previous year. The estimate shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section. (2) of Section 6 and be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed." F In the instant case, as we hav~ said above, notice under s.15(3) G was served by the Assessing Authority upon the appellant and as required by s.15(3-B), alongwith the notice the Assessing Authority had sent a statement showing the provisional estimate of the agricul tural income which in its opinion accrued ii> the appellant during the pre§i6us -~j/i' 1953-54 which estimate ..y~s prepared in accordance with ,lh'lf·J,rovisions of s. 6(2)(a). Admit¥.Jy, the change of opinion H songht to be exercised by the appellant vvali. denied to it by the Assess- ing Authority and the AsseJ~ing Authority proceeded with the assess- A 8 c D E F G H 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. ment of tbc agricultural income of the appellant-assessee in accordance \\~th s.li(2)(b). Admittedly further, the Assessing Authority had issued a notice under s.16(2) requiring the appellant to produce evi dence in support of its earlier returns. On September 29, 1955 the Assessing Authority served a further notice upo11 the appellant in forming the l;ltter t!Jat agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 38,947 / had escaped assessment and invited objections from the appellant whereafter it seems that the Assessing Authority not being satisfied mth tllr evidence produced by the appellant proceeded to make its best judgment !iO.Clioment under s.16(4). Section 16(4) runs thus: • "16(4) If the principal officer of any company or other person fails to make a r\'.!um under sub-sections (2) or ( 3) of Section 15, as t_l:ie case may be, or, having made the return, fails to comply with all the terms of the notice issued under sub-section (2) of this >ection or to produce any evidence required under sub-section (3) the assessing authority shall make the assessment to the best of his judg ment wi!h due regard to the statement, if any, sent under sub-section (3-B) of Section 15, notwithstanding any option exercised under sub-section (1) of Section 6." It will appear clear from the aforesaid provision contained in s.16(4) that whenever the Assessing Authority ])rocee<ls to make the assess ment to the best of its judgment the same is required to be made ~atel!)ent, if any, sent under sub-section "with due regard to the (3-B) of s. 15 notmthstanding any option exercised under sub-s. (1) lt is thus clear that irrespective of whatever option might of s.6." have been exercised by the assessee the best judgment assessment has to be made by the Assessing Authority by having due regard to the statement of provisional estimate of agricultural income made in ac cordance with s.6(2)(a) of the Act. The non-obstante clause leaves it open to the Assessing Authority to select whatever basis it consi d~rs appropri_ate for computing and determining the true agricultural income of the assessee; it may adopt any one of the bases in respect of the entire agricultural area or adopt one basis in respect of one part of agricultural area and the other basis in respect of anather part, the only obligation being to have "due regard" to the statement under s.15(3-B)· The scheme of s.16(4) clearly shows that in regard to the best judgment assessment there is nothing sacrosanct about the option exercised by the assessee under s. 6( 1) of the. Act, equally it can be said that in regard to assessments other than best judgment assessments under the scheme of s.15 there is nothing sacrosanct about the particular option previously exercised by the assessee and he need ..... t .. 1'. • • DELHI CLOTH MILLS v. u. P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 125 not be held bound by it provided he changes the option by filing a subsequent or a fresh or a revised return in accordance with a0Jlicablc provisions contained in s.15, the object being to cietermine his trnc agricultural income for the rel, vant previous year,-though so far as the Assessing Authority is COJ!cerned such option, whether original or subsequent, would indisputably be binding on it. In view of the aforesaid discu~sion, we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad ]J:igh Court was right in his conclusion that the appellant assessee was entitled to have the computation of its agricultural income for the previous year 1953-54 (1361 Fasli) relevant to the assessment year 1954-55 done in accor dance with s. 6(2)(a) of the Act. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the order of the Division Bench dated September 27, 1965 in Special Appeal No. 95 of 1962 is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge dated October 13, 1961 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1382 of 1960 is restored. The appellant will get the costs of Civil Appeal No.1946(NT) of 1972 fro.m the respondents while each party will bear and pay its own costs of Civil Appeal No. 1249 (NT) of 1968. A B c D . P.B.R. Appeal allowed .