Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 191 of 1962 is the appellant before us. The controversy relates to the assessment of the undivided Hindu family to which the appellant belongs, to supertax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. 2. The assessment year is 1959-60. The assessment order dated 29th November 1961 fixed the net assessable income of the undivided Hindu family at Rs. 1,50,429. 3. S.3 (4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, provides: "In the case of an undivided Hindu family consisting of brothers only or of a brother or brothers and the son or sons of a brother or brothers and whose agricultural income exceeds six thousand rupees, the tax shall be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of income due to a brother or to six thousand rupees, whichever is higher. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section (a) the expression'share of income due to a brother' means the portion of the total agricultural income of the family which would have accrued to a brother, if a partition of the assets had been effected according to law on the day before the assessment is made; and (b) 'son' includes a son's son." The appellant's undivided family consisted of brothers only, that is, of himself and his seven brothers. 4. According to sub-section (4), the agricultural income-tax payable by a family like that of the appellant should be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of income due to a brother or to six thousand rupees whichever is higher. In this case the share of income due to each of the brothers amounted to Rs. 18,804 and the agricultural income-tax payable by the undivided Hindu family calculated at the average rate applicable to the share of income due to a brother in accordance with Part I of the schedule to the Act came to Rs. 20,608. It is common ground that the calculation is correct and requires no modification. 5. Chapter IX of the Act deals with supertax. It consists of three sections, S.56, 57 and 58. 20,608. It is common ground that the calculation is correct and requires no modification. 5. Chapter IX of the Act deals with supertax. It consists of three sections, S.56, 57 and 58. The relevant portion of S.56 provides that in addition to the agricultural income-tax charged for any year, there shall be charged, levied and paid for that year in respect of the total agricultural income of the previous year of any Hindu undivided family, an additional duty of agricultural income-tax or supertax at the rate or rates laid down in Part II of the schedule to the Act. S.57 provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter IX, the total income of any Hindu undivided family shall, for the purposes of supertax, be the total agricultural income as assessed for the purposes of agricultural income-tax. S.58 says: "All the provisions of this Act relating to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of agricultural income-tax except those contained in sub-section (1) of S.3 and clauses (c), (d), and (e) of S.10 shall apply so far as may be to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of supertax." 6. The order of assessment made the undivided Hindu family liable for a supertax of Rs. 37,475/89. Part II of the schedule to the Act lays down the rates of supertax. The rate of supertax laid down therein on the first Rs. 25,000 of the total agricultural income is "Nil". The contentions of the appellant negatived in the order under appeal are: (a) that S.3 (4) of the Act is attracted to S.56 by virtue of S.58 of the Act; (b) that; as a result, supertax has to be calculated on the total agricultural income of the family at the rate applicable to the share of that income due to a brother, namely, Rs. 18,804; and (c) that, as no rate of supertax is laid down in the schedule for agricultural incomes of Rs. 25,000 and below, the appellant's family cannot be assessed to supertax in the assessment year with which we are concerned. 7. The real question for consideration is the true scope and effect of S.58. It says that all the provisions of the Act relating to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of agricultural income-tax except those excluded by that section shall apply so far as may be to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of supertax. 7. The real question for consideration is the true scope and effect of S.58. It says that all the provisions of the Act relating to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of agricultural income-tax except those excluded by that section shall apply so far as may be to the charge, assessment, collection and recovery of supertax. Sub-section (4) of S.3 is not one of the provisions excluded, and the only question, therefore, is whether the invocation of that sub-section in matters of supertax is precluded by the words "so far as may be" which occur in S.58. 8. The words "so far as may be" occurring in S.44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, came up for consideration in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam AIR. 1961 SC. 609. That section at the material time read as follows: "Where any business, profession or vocation carried on by a firm or association of persons has been discontinued, or where an association of persons is dissolved, every person who was at the time of such discontinuance or dissolution a partner of such firm or a member of such association shall, in respect of the income, profits and gains of the firm or association, be jointly and severally liable to assessment under Chapter IV and for the amount of tax payable and all the provisions of Chapter IV shall, so far as may be, apply to any such assessment." 9. The Supreme Court said: "By the use of the expression'so far as may be' it is merely intended to enact that the provisions in Chapter IV which from their nature have no application to firms will not apply thereto by virtue of S.44." 10. We do not see anything in S.3 (4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, which by its nature precludes the application on the sub-section to the charge of supertax. The contention of the Department is that the rule of harmonious construction requires us to say that sub-section (4) of S.3 is not attracted to S.56. We discern no dissonance; there is nothing incongruous in saying that the rate of supertax on the total agricultural income of an undivided Hindu I family consisting of brothers only shall be calculated in the same way as the rate of agricultural income-tax on the said income of the family is calculated. 11. We discern no dissonance; there is nothing incongruous in saying that the rate of supertax on the total agricultural income of an undivided Hindu I family consisting of brothers only shall be calculated in the same way as the rate of agricultural income-tax on the said income of the family is calculated. 11. If it is desired that super-tax should be charged in cases like the one before us, the remedy is in the hands of the Government themselves. All that they have to do is to alter Part II of the schedule and provide a rate of supertax for incomes of Rs. 25,000 and below in exercise of the powers conferred by S.70 of the Act which says: "The Government may make rules altering, adding to or cancelling the schedule to this Act." 12. In the light of what is stated above, the appeal has to be allowed and we do so with costs, advocate's fee Rs. 100. Allowed.