Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was assessed to Agricultural Income tax on October, 5, 1958, for the assessment year 1953-1956, corresponding to the accounting year 1129 M.E. On November 27,1958, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Palai, issued Ext. P1, notice, to the petitioner, intimating him, that he proposed to reassess his income for the accounting years 1129,1130 and 1131 M.E. and inviting objections, if any, to be filed within 35 days of the receipt of the notice. This was followed by another notice, Ext. P2, dated January 30, 1959, which stated, that the assessments made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1955-1956,1956-1957 and 1957-1958 will be reopened and fresh assessments made, under S.35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, which may be referred to briefly as the 'Act'. The petitioner took no action pursuant to the notice. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer made a reassessment by order, Ext, P3, on March 10, 1959 A notice of demand, Ext. P4, was then issued to the petitioner, for the payment of tax imposed. This petition is to quash both Exts. P3 and P4. 2. The chief ground, on which the petitioner relies, is that no notice had been issued to the petitioner under S.35 of the Act, and that therefore the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. It was not disputed before me, that the issue of the notice under S.35 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer to make a reassessment. The controversy was, as to the scope of a notice under S.35. The material part of this section provides: "If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year Income-tax Officer may serve on the person liable to pay the tax a notice under sub-section (2) of S.17 and may proceed to assess or reassess such income and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that subsection". S.17 (2) of the Act, to which reference is made in S.35, reads: "In the case of any person whose total agricultural income is, in the opinion of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, of such amount as to render such person liable to payment of agricultural income-tax for any financial year, he may serve in that year a notice in the prescribed form requiring such person to furnish within such period not being less than thirty days as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice) his total agricultural income during the previous year". It was common ground, that Ext. P2 was not a notice in terms of S.35 of the Act, but the learned Government Pleader maintained, that Ext. P1 was the notice in compliance with that provision. According to counsel for the petitioner, Ext. P1 was bad in law, as not containing "all or any of the requirements" of a notice under S.17 (2) of the Act, viz., the requirements, to furnish a return of income in the prescribed form, to verify it in the prescribed manner, and to set forth, along with other particulars as may be provided in the notice, the total agricultural income. The learned Government Pleader argued in reply, that once an assessee had made a return of his income under S.17 (2) for the original assessment, a further return is unnecessary and uncalled for, for making a reassessment under S.35 of the Act, and that the omission to call for a return in the notice under that section is not fatal. If this argument is to prevail, the three requirements of a notice under S.17(2), being related to the central requirement as to return and turning upon it, there need be no requirement of that notice at all, in a notice under S.35. Surely, the expression "all or any of the requirements" cannot mean none. The suggestion, that the specification of a time limit of 35 days as in Ext. P1, is such a requirement in the notice under S.17 (2), cannot be countenanced, for the period of time has to be related to a specific act or must qualify a specific requirement in the notice. The period, standing by itself, means nothing. The suggestion, that the specification of a time limit of 35 days as in Ext. P1, is such a requirement in the notice under S.17 (2), cannot be countenanced, for the period of time has to be related to a specific act or must qualify a specific requirement in the notice. The period, standing by itself, means nothing. Dealing with the period of 30 days prescribed by S.22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Chagla, C.J., in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Ramsukh Motilal, A.I.R. 1955 Bombay 227, treated it as but qualifying the three requirements, in the notice, which were stated to be, the requirements, to make a return, to verify and to give particulars. It seems therefore clear, that a return of income, or particulars as to the total agricultural income, is the central requirement in a notice under S.17 (2) of the Act, which cannot be dispensed with. It is seen from the Income-tax Manual, that the Income-tax Department had, in prescribing the form of a notice under S.34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, before it was amended, made the requirement as to the making of a return, an essential ingredient in it. In the Bombay case too, it appears, that though the assessee had furnished a return of his income for the original assessment, he was called upon to make a fresh return for the reassessment, the illegality in the notice complained of in that case being, that a period of only six days was given to the assessee instead of a minimum period of thirty days. On principle, the making of a fresh return cannot be considered to be meaningless or redundant; it may be, that the assessee may have discovered some mistake in the original return he had made, or may wish to modify it in the light of fresh circumstance which may have come to his notice and it is only reasonable, for the department to give the assessee a last chance, as it were, to make a return of his income, before proceeding against him by way of reassessment In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Messrs Mahaliram Ramjidas, A.I.R 1940 P.C.124, too, the assessee had furnished a return of his income under S.22 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the original assessment, and the notice issued under S.34 of that Act, specifically called on him to make a fresh return of his income. On this, the Privy Council observed as follows: "The operative part of S.34 empowers the Income-tax Officer to proceed de novo under sub-section (2) of S.22, and that in turn leads, if there should still be a question of the accuracy of the return, to an enquiry under S.23 (2) and (3), and in that enquiry the assessee has a statutory right to appear and to produce evidence". These observations seem to lend support to the contention of the petitioner's counsel, that it is not an empty formality to insist upon a return or particulars of the income, by a notice under S.35 of the Act. In the present case, Ext. PI stated, that the petitioner's, income from coconuts has escaped assessment and it called upon him to file objections to the proposal to reassess the income. This is not in compliance with the notice prescribed by S.35 or S.17 (2) of the Act. In this view, the assessment order, Ext. P3, and the notice, Ext. P4, have to be quashed; they are accordingly quashed, and the petition is allowed in the above manner. No costs. Allowed.