DEKA, J.: These two connected rules were issued at the instance of Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd., who presented two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writs for quashing the orders of assessment of agricultural income: tax for the years 1944-45 and 1945-46 pass­ed against the petitioners. Civil Rule No. 67/55 relates to the assessment for the year 1944-45 and Civil Rule No. 63/55 relates to the assessment for the year 1945-46. The points for consideration arising from these two applications are identical. The facts relating to these two applications are in short that for the periods in question the assessment of agricultural income-tax was originally made under section 20 (4) of the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1939 (Assam Act IX of 1939) which provides that ''if the principal officer of any company or other person fails to make a return under sub-sec­tion (1) or sub-section (2) of section 19, as the 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 section, or to produce any evidence required under sub-section (3) of this section, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall make the assessment to the best of his judgment, and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment.........." (2) Against the aforesaid assessments the petitioners moved the learned Agricultural Income-Tax Officer under section 21 of the Assam Agricul­tural Income-Tax Act for reopening the assess­ment as provided under that section, which pro­vides that "Where an assessee, or in case of a company the principal officer thereof, within one month from the service of a notice of demand issued as hereinafter provided satisfies the Agricultural In­come-Tax Officer that he was prevented by suffi­cient cause from making the return required by section 19 or that he did not receive the notice is­sued under sub-section (2) of section 19 or sub-sec­tion (2) of section 20 or that he had not reason­able opportunity to comply or was prevented by sufficient Cause from complying with the terms of the last mentioned notices the Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall cancel the assessment and proceed to make a fresh assessment in accor­dance with the provisions of section 20. (3) It appears that the petitioners had sub­mitted returns for the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-48 prior to the assessment under section 20 (4) of the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act but could not produce the accounts before the Agri­cultural Income-Tax Officer and the "Central asses­sment copies" -that means copies of the order of assessment of Income-tax under the Indian In­come-Tax Act and the figures computed there­under, - since there was an appeal pending from that assessment. The petitioners further submit that they pro­duced along with the account books the audited balance sheet too. Their contention is that the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer -even after reopening the case under section 21 of the Act con­fined himself for the purpose of assessment of ag­ricultural income from tea to the figures of income as found by the Income-Tax Officer in the assess­ment for the years 1944-45 and 1945-46 and made assessment thereon, treating 60% to be the agri­cultural income less the deductible costs .and did not base his findings on the books of accounts or the balance sheet submitted, which was duly audi­ted. (4) The learned Advocate for the petitioners refers us to section 20 (3) of the Assam Agricul­tural Income Tax Act which runs as follows :- "(3) On the day specified in the notice under sub-section (2) or as soon afterwards as may be the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer, after hearing such evidence as such person may produce and such other evidence as the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer may require on specified points, shall, by an order in writing, assess the total agricultural income of the assesses and determine the sum pay­able by him on such assessment: ............" The learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer did not really exercise his judgment on the evidence as ad­duced in the case, but confined himself for the pur­pose of assessment to the figures as found by the Income-Tax Officer for the identical years and that amounted, according to his contention, to 'ailing to exercise jurisdiction as vested in the Agricul­tural Income-Tax Officer by virtue of section 20 (3) of the Act. (5) In the orders of 28. 3. 52 passed in two cases by Mr. (5) In the orders of 28. 3. 52 passed in two cases by Mr. R. B. Chaudhury, Agricultural In­come-Tax Officer, which relate to the final assess­ment after setting aside the original assessment under section 21 the following lines are Important:- In Civil Rule 67/55., "Now the Central assessment copy is filed and as the income determined by Central is the same as determined by me, I reopen the case u/S. 21 and reassess them under section 20 (3) as follows :- 40% of total income determined by the Central I. T. O. ....... Rs. 30,000/- Hence Agricultural proportion is .....Rs 45,000/- Tax @ 30 pies .. .. Rs. 7,031/4/-." In Civil Rule 68/55. "Now the Central Assessment copy is filed and as the income assessed, by Central is the same as determined by me I reopen the case under section 21 and reassess them u/S. 20 (3) as follows:- 40% of the total income determined by the Central Income Tax Officer .....Rs. 50,000/- Hence Agricultural portion is .....Rs. 75.000/- Tax @ 30 pies . . . . Rs. 11.718/12/-." There were appeals against these orders of assess­ment passed by the Agricultural Income-Tax Offi­cer as well as revisions, but they were all rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commis­sioner of Agricultural Income'-Tax respectively who are the competent authorities to hear the appeals and revisions. The higher Courts, however, indi­cated that "If the petitioners get any relief as a result of his revision petition before the Central Income-Tax Commissioner, he will be entitled to apply for revision of his assessment under the Agricultural Income-Tax Act and he will be given the relief admissible under the law." It appears that the assessees reported to the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Agri­cultural Income-Tax that the figures arrived at by the Income-Tax Officer for the purpose of assess­ment for the periods in question were also based on best judgment assessments and the party had moved the Income Tax authorities for revision of the aforesaid orders. We do not really know now in what stage the Income Tax cases are, if at all, but however that is not relevant for the purpose of our investigation. We do not really know now in what stage the Income Tax cases are, if at all, but however that is not relevant for the purpose of our investigation. The only thing that we have to examine is how far the Agricultural Income Tax Officer was competent to make the assessment on the figures obtainable from the judgment of the Income-Tax Officer for the identical period - for production of tea, to which these orders relate. (6) In this case Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act is relevant, the relevant portion of which is quoted blow :- "5. In respect of agricultural income from tea grown and manufactured by the seller in the Province of Assam, the portion of net income work­ed out under the Indian Income-Tax Act and left unassessed as being agricultural shall be assessed under this Act after allowing such deductions un­der the Act and the rules made thereunder so far as they have not been allowed under the Indian Income-tax Act in computing the net income from the entire operation. Provided that the computation made by the Indian Income-tax Officer shall ordinarily be ac­cepted by the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Offi­cer who may, for his satisfaction under section 20 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, obtain further details from the assessee or from the Indian Income-tax Officer, but shall not without the previous sanction of the Assistant Commis­sioner of Assam, Agricultural Income-tax, require under the proviso to section 49 the production of account books already examined by the Indian Income-tax Officer for determining the agricul­tural income from tea grown and manufactured in Assam or refuse to accept the computation of the Indian Income-tax Officer." (7) Mr. Ghose's contention on behalf of the petitioners is that Rule 5 is ultra vires the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act as well as section 50 of the said Act which gives the State Government the rule making power. He contends that S. 50 nowhere provides that the State Government can frame rules for assessment by totally rejecting the documents that are actually produced before the Agricultural Income-tax Authorities which are subject to consideration under section 20 of the Act. He contends that S. 50 nowhere provides that the State Government can frame rules for assessment by totally rejecting the documents that are actually produced before the Agricultural Income-tax Authorities which are subject to consideration under section 20 of the Act. He further contends that though in sub-sec­tion 2 of section 50 there are mentioned other heads on which the State Government is compe­tent to frame rules, there is no mention of Section 20 for any such purpose. He argues accordingly that Rule 5 cannot be said to be framed under sec­tion 50, and it goes counter to the express words of Section 20. - and the State Government has no power to frame any such rule which goes contrary to the provision of the Act itself. (8) Though on the face of it, the argument looked attractive, on a scrutiny of the Act it ap­pears that the contention has not much substance. On a reference to the proviso to section 8 of the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act, we find that it is provided that in cases of agricultural income from cultivation and manufacture of tea, the agricultural income for the purpose of the Assam Agricultu­ral Income-Tax Act shall be deemed to be that portion of the income from cultivation, manufacture and sale which is agricultural income within the meaning of the Indian Income Tax Act and shall be ascertained by computing the income from the cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea as computed for Indian income-tax from which shall be deducted any allowances by the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act authorised, in so far as the same shall not have been allowed in the computation for the Indian Income-Tax Act. (9) This provision in Assam Agricultural In­come Tax Act itself would entitle the State Gov­ernment to frame rules of the kind, as Rule 5, to which we have already referred. (10) Mr. (9) This provision in Assam Agricultural In­come Tax Act itself would entitle the State Gov­ernment to frame rules of the kind, as Rule 5, to which we have already referred. (10) Mr. Medhi has further submitted on be­half of the Agricultural Income Tax authorities that this rule (rule 5) is framed in pursuance of the provisions of Section 50 (2) (a) -which pro­vides that the State Government may make rules' to "prescribe the manner in which the net income from land referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 8 shall be calculated." Sub-section (1) of Section 8 speaks of the agricultural income mentioned in sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of Section 2, - where apart from the definition of Agricultural Income Tax for the purpose of this Act in the Explanation it is provided that ''agricultural income derived from such land by the cultivation of tea means that portion of the income derived from the cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea as is defined to be agricultural in­come for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian Income-tax." There is sufficient force in this submission. The rule cannot therefore be said to be ultra vires . the parent Act or to be in excess of the rule mak­ing powers given under the Act. Mr. Ghose is fur­ther not quite correct in contending that no dis­cretion is left to the Income-Tax authorities for the purpose of exercise of their own judgments under Section 20 (3) or in cases where assessment is made wrongly by the Income-Tax Officer or the Income-Tax authorities. The operation of Section 20 (3) as such is neither barred nor does the Act or the rules framed thereunder provide that for the general purpose of assessment the Agricultural Income-Tax authorities should exercise no discre­tion or take no note of the documents filed before them. But it is only in the case of computation for the purpose of assessment of the agricultural in­come on tea that the rule provides that the compu­tation made by the Indian Income-Tax Officer shall ordinarily be accepted by the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer who has the discretion under Section 20 of the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act to obtain further details from the assessee or from the Indian Income-Tax Officer. We cannot there­fore say that there is no scope for exercising dis­cretion under S. 20 of the Act, but the Act itself considers it a safe guide to take the figures of com­putation arrived at by the Indian Income-Tax Officers, ordinarily, and their readings of the ac­count books as correct. (11) Rule 24 of the Indian Income-Tax Act provides that income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in British India shall be computed as if it were income de­rived from business and 40 per cent of such in­come shall be deemed to be income, profits and gains liable to tax. The other 60 per cent is trea­ted to be agricultural income subject to such de­ductions as the law provides and the Agricultural Income-Tax Officer took for the purpose of assess­ment 60 per cent to be the basis for the assessment of Agricultural Income-Tax for the years in ques­tion. We cannot therefore say that the Agricul­tural income-Tax Officer failed in the matter of exercising his jurisdiction properly or had failed to exercise his jurisdiction at all. The party has further been assured by the Ag­ricultural Income-Tax authorities that in case there is revision of the assessment made under the Indian Income-Tax Act for the particular finan­cial years, the Agricultural Income-Tax department would be prepared to give the assessee fur­ther reliefs to the extent of such variation if any. Therefore we do not see how the petitioners are prejudiced or how they can ask for a writ in the circumstances for quashing the orders of assess­ment passed by the Agricultural Income-Tax De­partment. The Rules are accordingly discharged and the petitioners shall pay Rs. 200/- as consoli­dated hearing fee for the two rules in question. (12) SARJOO PROSAD, C. J.: I agree. Section 8 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act justifies the existence of Rule 5 of the Rules. The existence of the rule does not militate with the provision of Section 20 of the Act, because it is only in case of agricultural income derived from tea that the wholesome limitation provided in the rule comes into play so as to make it consistent with the as­sessment under the Income Tax Act and avoid ano­malies and inconsistent findings as far as practi­cable. V. R. B. Rules discharged.