JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Velu Pillai J. allowing O. P. No. 448 of 1959. The appellant is the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Palai, the respondent in that petition. 2. The petitioner in the original petition -- the respondent before us -- challenged the validity of Exts. P. 3 and P. 4. The facts of the case and the contention urged by the petitioner are summarised as follows in the judgment under appeal: "The petitioner was assessed to Agricultural Income Tax on October 6, 1958, for the assessment year 1955-'56 corresponding to the accounting year 1129 M. E. On November 27, 1958, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Pala', issued Ext P. 1, notice, to the petitioner, intimating him, that he proposed to re-assess 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. P. 2, dated January 30, 1959, which stated, that the assessments made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1955-'56, 1956-'57 and 1957-'58 will be reopened and fresh assessments made, under Section 35 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The petitioner took no action pursuant to the notice. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer made a re-assessment by order, Ext. P. 3, on March 10, 1959. A notice of demand Ext. P. 4, was then issued to the petitioner, for the payment of tax imposed. This petition is to quash both Exts. P. 3 and P 4. The chief ground, on which the petitioner relies, is that no notice had been issued to the petitioner under Section 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 a notice under Section 35 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer to make a re-assessment. The controversy was, as to the scope of a notice under section 35." 3. It was not disputed before me, that the issue of a notice under Section 35 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer to make a re-assessment. The controversy was, as to the scope of a notice under section 35." 3. Section 35 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 provides: "If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer may, at any time within three years, of the end of that year serve on the person liable to pay the tax or in the case of a company on the principal officer thereof a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 17 and may proceed to assess or re-assess 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 sub-section : Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged if such income had not escaped assessment or full assessment, as the case maybe." and section 17(2): "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 not disputed before the learned Judge -- and it is not disputed before us -- that Ext. P. 2 is not a notice in accordance with section 35. The only contention was and is that Ext. P. 1 satisfied the requirements of that section. Ext. P. 2 is not a notice in accordance with section 35. The only contention was and is that Ext. P. 1 satisfied the requirements of that section. Ext. P. 1 reads as follows : "Sri V. Sreenivasa Naicken, Vattathu house, Naduviia, Vaikom is informed that, as a result of inspection of his properties at Shertallai it has come to notice that certain income from cocoanuts for the accounting years 1129, 1130 & 1131 has escaped assessment. It is therefore proposed to reopen the case and re-assess his income. Objections if any, may be filed within 35 days from receipt of this notice". 4. Section 35 of the Act provides that the notice to be issued under that section should contain "all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub section (2) of section 17". The requirements which may be included in a notice under section 17(2), as is clear from the sub section are "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)" the total agricultural income of the person concerned during the relevant period. Ext P. 1 does not contain all or any of those requirements and it must follow that it cannot be sustained as a valid notice under section 35 of the Act. 5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that section 35 visualises only the issuance of a notice -- so that the proceedings may be in consonance with the canons of natural justice -- and that whether all or any of the requirements of section 17(2) should be embodied therein is a matter in the discretion of the officer concerned. The learned Judge held that this contention is unacceptable and that the expression "all or any of the requirements" cannot mean none. We are in agreement with that view. 6. S.35 and 17(2) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, , correspond to S.34 and 22(2) respectively of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The question as to whether a quasi judicial enquiry should precede the issue of a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, came up for consideration in AIR 1940 PC 124 . S.35 and 17(2) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, , correspond to S.34 and 22(2) respectively of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The question as to whether a quasi judicial enquiry should precede the issue of a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, came up for consideration in AIR 1940 PC 124 . The Board said that that section "is unhappily and even ungrammatically phrased" and dealt with the contention as follows: "The operative part of S. 34 empowers the Income Tax Officer to proceed de novo under sub-s. 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. Therefore a construction of S. 34 which requires a quasi judicial enquiry to be held before the powers under the Section can be operated would result in mere duplication of procedure and in two enquiries of the same kind, into the same matter, conducted by the same official, and without any advantage to the parties." As stated by the learned Judge the decision supports the contention of the petitioner as regards the scope and meaning of section 35 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act 1950. 7. Our attention was drawn to (1955) 27 ITR 54. In that case the Bombay High Court had to deal with the period of not less than thirty days specified in section 22(2) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922. Chagla C. J. said that three requirements are embodied in section 22(2) and: "Each of the three requirements mentioned in section 22(2) is qualified by the Legislature providing that the notice must give time to the assessee to comply with that requirement within a period which cannot be shorter than 30 days. The requirement is not merely to make a return or to verify or to give particulars. The requirement is not merely to make a return or to verify or to give particulars. The requirement is in each case that the return must be made, the verification must be made, or the particulars must be given, within a period of not less than 30 days." This and other similar decisions are dealt with in a recent judgment of this Court in T. R. C. No. 62 of 1960 (since reported in 1961 K. L. J. 890), a case under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955. Sections 35 and 16(2) of that Act correspond to sections 35 and 17(2) respectively of the Agricultural Income Tax Act 1950. 8. A notice very similar to Ext. P. 1 came up for consideration before the High Court of Calcutta in AIR 1955 NUC 552, a case under the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. Sections 38 and 24(2) of that Act correspond to sections 35 and 17(2) respectively of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. 9. The notice was in the following terms: "Whereas it appears agricultural income, to wit salami of Rs. 8,000 received by you in 1950 B. S. has escaped assessment during 1944-45, notice is hereby given under S.38(1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act that assessment of the said income will be taken up on June 12, 1945 at 2 p. m. in my office at Chinsura". The court held that it did not comply with the requirement of section 38 read with section 24(2) of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. 10. In the light of what is stated above this writ appeal has to be dismissed and we do so, with costs, advocate's fee Rs. 150/-.