Judgment :- 1. The matter arises out of orders passed by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Incometax and Salestax, Kozhikode in the purported exercise of his jurisdiction under S.34 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The challenge in this writ petition is directed to Exts. P10 and PI3. Ext. P10 is the order passed by the 1st respondent, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Taliparamba, where under the petitioner was assessed to agricultural income tax to the tune of Rs. 10,807.65 and a surcharge of Rs. 2,759.51. Ext. P13 is the order of the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, dated 17-8-1979. 2. The grievance of the petitioner against Ext. P13 order is that it is without considering the relevancy of the reports submitted by the Commissioner who visited the property on 27/28 of October, 1977 that the Deputy Commissioner disposed of the revision. A further submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that though as per the accounts the salary paid to Karystha came to Rs 4200/- for the year, instead of allowing that deduction in full only a sum of Rs. 1200/- was allowed by the 1st respondent, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer in Ext. P 10 order, and that alone has been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner also in Ext. P 13 order. 3. Coming to the major point raised in the writ petition, namely, the relevancy of the reports submitted by the Commissioner. I have no hesitation in holding that the 3rd respondent was clearly in error in stating as follows: "As each year's assessment is independent, the inspection conducted subsequently would not form as a proper basis for earlier periods where there is already an inspection, which forms the correct basis of the assessments in dispute." Sub-section (4) of S.31 of the Act provides: "The Assistant Commissioner shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal and may from time to time adjourn the hearing and make or cause to be made such further inquiry as he thinks fit. Provided that on the application of the appellant and at his cost the Assistant Commissioner may, in appropriate cases issue a commission to ascertain and report the yield and cultivation expenses or the rent and collection charges of the properties of the assessee included in the assessment order, and orders on the appeal shall be passed only after considering the said report." The power to take evidence conferred on the Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the Agricultural Income Tax Officer includes the power to issue commission for examination of witnesses and for ascertaining the yield and cultivation expenses in respect of any land. (Vide S.38 (c) of the Act). R.25A of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules. 1951 provides the elaborate procedure in regard to the appointment of Commissioner and the manner in which the Commissioners are to inspect the properties and make the report. Sub-rule (8) of R.25A provides: "(8) When the report is submitted together with the evidence, the appropriate authority of Appellate Tribunal shall serve on the parties concerned, a copy of the report and the evidence, and shall specify the time for filing objections, if any, by them and the matter shall be posted to a fixed day for hearing " Sub-rule (9) is to the following effect: "The appropriate authority or Appellate Tribunal may, or on the application of any of the parties to the proceedings shall, examine the Commissioner personally, touching any of the matters referred to him. or mentioned in his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation." Sub-rule (10) provides: "When the appropriate authority or Appellate Tribunal is, for any reason,dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further enquiry to be made as it may think fit." Sub-rule (11) provides: "The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him but not the evidence without the report shall be evidence in the case and shall form part of the records." As it could be seen from S.38 (c) of the Act the power to issue commission has been conferred on the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and the Agricultural Income Tax Officer to make an assessment regarding the yield and the expenses with respect to the income relevant for the year. If, as a matter of fact, no useful purpose is to be served by the issue of a commission and the obtaining of a report prepared by the Commissioner, the legislature would not have made a provision as is contained in S.31 (4) and S.38(c) of the Act. The elaborate procedure for the appointment of the Commissioner, inspection of the property, and the preparation of the report, also would not have been provided but for the fact that legislature thought such report is a relevant piece of evidence in the process of determining the income and the expenses for the production of the yield for the year. There could be no doubt that the yield and cultivation expense during any particular year would not be exactly the same for another year; they would vary from year to year, without being constant in the very nature of things; however, this fact would not be a justification for not considering the worth of the report on the ground that it represents the yield and the expense as observed at an inspection made subsequent to the end of the accounting year. The proper thing to do in the context of the provisions contained in S.31 (4) and 38 (c) of the Act and R.25A of the Rules is to consider the report giving due weight to valid objection, if any, raised by the assessee, and make use of the data furnished by the Commissioner to the extent it is found relevant and acceptable in determining the probable yield and expense during the accounting year in question. In this case the 3rd respondent has, while accepting the data relating to the number of trees, rejected the data with respect to yield, expenditure, etc. on the reasoning that the report of inspection is not relevant, "as each year's assessment is independent". The reason adduced in support of the conclusion reached by the 3rd respondent cannot be upheld in the light of the provisions contained in S.31 (4) and 38 (c) of the Act and R.25A of the Rules. 4. I would therefore quash Ext. PI3 order passed by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, and direct him to pass a fresh order disposing of the revision considering the entire material on record including the reports submitted by the Commissioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. 4. I would therefore quash Ext. PI3 order passed by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, and direct him to pass a fresh order disposing of the revision considering the entire material on record including the reports submitted by the Commissioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to the Government Pleader free of charge and to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms, if applied for in that behalf. Allowed.