Judgment :- In a recent decision in M. O. A. Rahman Sait v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Koshal J. has also taken the view that since the assessment year commenced on the first of April, 1966, the amendment brought in by Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1966, will not stand attracted unless for the assessment year 1966-67 it has been made specifically retrospective All the above decisions make it abundantly clear that any change in the law in the course of an assessment year, cannot apply in making the assessment for that assessment year unless the statutory provision has been made retrospective and that in the absence of such a retrospective operation, normally, the law as on the date of the commencement of the assessment year should govern the assessment for that year. This is because the subject of charge both under the Income-tax Act as well as the Agricultural Income-tax Act is not the income of the year of assessment, but the income of the previous year. When an assessment is made, the income of the previous year is determined as on the date of the commencement of the assessment year. Therefore, whenever an assessment is to be made, it should be taken to have been made with reference to the law in force at the commencement of the assessment year. In this case, as already stated, the Amending Act came into force on May 13, 1966, and it is not specifically made retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year which commenced on first April, 1966, the assessment has to be made without reference to the Act 7 of 1966 and the order of the Commissioner so far as it says that as the Amending Act was in force on the date when the composition order came to be made it has to be applied, is illegal and cannot be sustained. In this view, the Commissioner's order so far as it relates to the assessment year 1966-67 has to be quashed, and is quashed, and W. P. No. 1897 of 1973 is allowed. But there will be no order as to costsAs regards the assessment year 1967-68, the Amending Act No. 7 of 1966 will have to apply and if the petitioner's holding during that year is more than 50 standard acres, there cannot be any order of composition. But there will be no order as to costsAs regards the assessment year 1967-68, the Amending Act No. 7 of 1966 will have to apply and if the petitioner's holding during that year is more than 50 standard acres, there cannot be any order of composition. The petitioner's case even before the Commissioner is that her holding is less than 50 standard acres and that would be clear from a perusal of the orders of composition passed for the subsequent assessment years. But the petitioner has urged before the Commissioner that the land under arecanut crop stood reduced from the assessment year 1967-68 and that, therefore, her holding will be less than 50 standard acres. The Commissioner, however, held that the aggregate holding of the petitioner came to 16 acres 71 cents which worked out to 50.13 standard acres, that as the petitioner's holding exceeded 50 standard acres by 13 cents, the order of composition for that assessment year made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner has challenged the said finding given by the Commissioner in Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1973. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has filed a review application before the Commissioner himself for a review of the order on the ground that adangal extracts for the relevant years will clearly establish the petitioner's holding to be less than 50 standard acres. But the said review petition has been dismissed by the Commissioner by an order dated October 31, 1972, holding that no reliance could be placed on the adangal extracts. The petitioner contends before this court that there has been no proper investigation on the petitioner's claim that her holding is less than 50 standard acres based on the adangal extracts and other materials produced by her and that even her attempt to have the impugned orders reviewed had failed. A perusal of the original order of the Commissioner dated October 31, 1972, shows that the Commissioner was not inclined to place any reliance on the entries in adangal made by the local village officers. If the adangal entries show that the petitioner's holding is less than 50 standard acres, it is for the revenue to disprove the entries or reject the same on certain concrete materials or evidence. If the adangal entries show that the petitioner's holding is less than 50 standard acres, it is for the revenue to disprove the entries or reject the same on certain concrete materials or evidence. The mere rejection of the entries in the adangal as unreliable without reference to the person who made the entries specially when there is no other evidence contra, does not appear to be correct in the circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to prove the entries in the adangal before the Commissioner, if the Commissioner felt that no reliance could be placed on the entries in the adangal. I, therefore, feel that the question whether the petitioner's holding during the assessment year 1967-68 was above 50 standard acres or not will have to be decided afresh by the Commissioner after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case that her holding was less than 50 standard acres during that assessment year. The result is that the Commissioner's order so far as it relates to the assessment year 1967-68 and the consequent order of assessment passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for that year will stand vacated. The Commissioner is directed to dispose of the suo motu proceedings in relation to the assessment year 1967-68 afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her stand that her holding is less than 50 standard acres. With these directions, the Writ Petitions Nos 1896 and 1898 of 1973 are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.