In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.6.94 of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam in so far as the said order rejected the claims of the petitioner for expenses on Turnover Tao, West Bengal Sales Tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Advertisement Charges for the purpose of earning agricultural income and for export allowance. The facts briefly are that for the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner was assessed to income tax in respect of its income from the business of tea. In the assessment, however, the petitioner was not allowed the expenses on Turnover Tax, WB Sates Tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Advertisement Charges. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Circle 2, Calcutta and by order dated 27.2.91, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Circle 2, Calcutta granted some relief to the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid expenses from its business income. Pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143 (3)/251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowing to the petitioner 40% of the following expenses : (a) Turnover Tax Rs. 1,69,201 (b) Ona/cofWBST Rs. 1,270 (c) On a/c of Entry Tax Rs. 46,239 (d) On a/c of Excise Duty Rs. 46,170 (e) On a/c of Misc Charges (Rs.50,000-Rs.5,000) Rs. 45,000 (f) On a/c of Advertisement Charges Rs. 38,911 (g) On a/c of Labour and Staff Welafre . Rs. 18,436 Rs.3,65,227 Rs. 1,46,090 Rs.20,48,960 Thereafter an assessment order was passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam, Guwahati on 20.7.91 for the assessment year 1987-88 in respect of the agricultural income of the petitioner. In the said assessment order, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam, Guwahati disallowed the claim of the petitioner for the balance 60% of the expenses on the different items of expenses as detailed above claimed by the petitioner as deduction from its agricultural income. By the said assessment order, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer also disallowed a claim 60% of the export allowance of the petitioner under section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961. By the said assessment order, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer also disallowed a claim 60% of the export allowance of the petitioner under section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Tinsukia and by order dated 31st July 1993 the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Tinsukia also rejected the claim of the balance 60% of the expenses as well as the claim of balance 60% of the export allowance of the petitioner under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner then moved before the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati in a revision petition under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax, 1939. The Joint Commissioner of Taxes by his order dated 25.6.94 allowed the expenses on labour and staff welfare to the extent of 60% which had not been allowed by the Income Tax Officer, but rejected the claim of expenses of the petitioner on Turnover Tax, WB Sales Tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Adver­tisement Charges as detailed above, By the said order dated 25.6.94 the Joint Commissioner of Taxes also disallowed the claim of 60% of the export allowances under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has thus moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief. 2. At the hearing, Mr. GK Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that agriculture income has been defined in Article 366 (1) as meaning agricultural income as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian Income Tax. He pointed out that similarly the explanation to section 2 (a) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 states that agricultural income derived from such land by the cultivation of tea, meant that portion of the income derived from the cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea as is defined to be agricultural income for the purpose of the enactments relating to Indian Income Tax. According to Mr. Joshi, therefore, the enactments relating to Indian Income Tax have to be followed for the purpose of finding out the meaning of agricultural income derived from cultivation of tea. According to Mr. Joshi, therefore, the enactments relating to Indian Income Tax have to be followed for the purpose of finding out the meaning of agricultural income derived from cultivation of tea. He referred to Rule 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which provides that income derived from the sale of the tea grown and manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business and forty percent of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to tax. Mr. Joshi submitted that Rule 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 makes it clear that income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in India is a mixed or composite income and has to be computed after deducting all expenses there from and after such computation, 40% of the income is ;o be deemed to be income liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the balance 60% is to be treated as agricultural income for the purpose of tax under the laws relating to agricultural income tax of different States. He submitted that since 40% of the expenses on different items were allowed to the petitioner for the assessment year 1987-88 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the balance 60% of the said expenses have to be allowed under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 and the rules made thereon. Besides, Ruile 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Mr. Joshi has also relied on the provisions of section 8 (2) (f) (vii) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 which provides that any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of income is to be allowed provided that it would not have been inadmissible for deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of earning income chargeable to ta> under the said Act. 3. Mrs K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the reasons for not allowing the aforesaid expenses have been given by the appellate authority in his order dated 31st July, 1993. 3. Mrs K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the reasons for not allowing the aforesaid expenses have been given by the appellate authority in his order dated 31st July, 1993. In the said order the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) has held that income from tea is a mixed income and is partly commercial and industrial and partly agricultural and the provisions of section 8 (2) (f) (vii) are not applicable in the case of deduction of tax of the petitioner. She submitted that the revisional authority has also indicated the reason in the impugned order for rejecting the aforesaid claim of expenses. In the impugned order, the Joint Commissioner of Taxes has held that the expenses as claimed by the petitioner cannot be categorised as expenses to derive agricultural income and therefore cannot be allowed. Mrs Yadav, referred to the provision of Rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1939 in support of her submission that notwithstanding the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authorities under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 can disallow a claim if they are not satisfied about any claim for expenses made by the assessee. 4. On a reading of the order dated 31st July, 1993 of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) as well as the impugned order dated 25th June, 1994 of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, I find that neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority has questioned the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the petitioner on Turnover Tax, WB Sales Tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Advertisement Charges as detailed above. The reason why they have not allowed the said expenses is that the expenses cannot be categories as expenses to derive agricultural income and are not allowable under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939. The reason why they have not allowed the said expenses is that the expenses cannot be categories as expenses to derive agricultural income and are not allowable under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939. While apparently it may seen that Turnover Tax, WB Sales Tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Advertisement Charges do not relate to expenses for carrying out agricultural operation, the said expenses if genuinely incurred for the purpose of earning income from the business of sale of tea grown and manufactured by the petitioner will have to be allowed because of what has been provided in Article 366 (1) of the Constitution, the explanation to section 2 (a) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 and Rules 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The appellate authority and the revisional authority may have been right in taking the view that the aforesaid expenses do not relate to expenses for the purpose of agricultural income if the agricultural income sought-to be taxed was not derived from the sale and manufacture of tea grown in India. But since in the instant case the agricultural income sought to be taxed by the authorities under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 is income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured in India, only that portion of such income is taxable as agricultural income as is permissible under Rule 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Under the said Rules 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962,40% of the income from the sale of tea grown and manufactured in India is deemed as income liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the balance 60% is to be deemed as agricultural income. Obviously the income referred to in the Rule 8(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and so computed each of the items of expenses claimed by the petitioner as detailed above are to be allowed so long as the expenses have been wholly incurred by the assesses and these expenses are to be allowed to the extent of 100%. It is only after allowing the expenses genuinely incurred by the petitioner to the extent of 100% that 40% of such income is to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as business income after allowing such other allowances as are granted under the said Act, 1961 and the balance 60% was to be treated as agricultural income and taxed under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 after such other allowances as are granted by the said Act of 1939. The result is that the petitioner was entitled to deduction of the aforesaid items of expenses on Turnover Tax, WB Sales Tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Advertisement Charges to the extent of 100% in the computation of its income and only thereafter the income was to proportioned between business income and agricultural income in the proportion of 40% and 60% respectively. As the petitioner has been allowed only 40% of the said expenses by the Income Tax Officer, it was entitled to the balance 60% of the said expenses in the assessment of its agricultural income under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939. The impugned order dated 25.6.94 of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati is thus contrary to the bare provisions of Article 366 (1) of the Constitution, the explanation to section 2 (a) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 and Rule 8 (1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and suffers from a grave error of law. 5. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for 60% of the export allowance under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a Division Bench of this Court has already held in the case of Assam Company Ltd & another vs. State of Assam & others, (1996) ITR 59 that export allowance under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowable as deduction under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1961 as it was not an expense for the purpose of computing income from the sale and manufacture of tea grown in India, but is an allowance granted by the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the business income of the assessee. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Joshi, however, submitted that the Assam Tea Co has carried an appeal to the Supreme Court against the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Assam Co Ltd & another vs. State of Assam & others and that the said appeal is yet to be disposed of by the Supreme Court. Mr. Joshi prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the right of the petitioner to claim export allowance, in case the said appeal is allowed by the Supreme Court, should be protected. 7. In view of the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assam Co Ltd & another vs. State of Assam & others (supra), the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes disallowing the said claim of the petitioner for 60% of the export allowance cannot be interfered by this Court. In case, however, the Supreme Court takes a different view and sets aside the judgment of the Division Bench in the said case of Assam Co Ltd & another vs. State of Assam & others, it is for the petitioner to seek such remedy as is available to it under the law. 8. In the result the impugned order dated 25.6.94 of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati is no far as it disallows the claim of expenses of the petitioner to the extent of 60% on Turnover Tax, WB Sales tax, Entry Tax, Excise Duty, Misc Charges and Advertisement Charges as indicated above is quashed and the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam, Guwahati to whom the matter has been remanded for re-assessment by the said order of the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, is directed to allow the aforesaid expenses to the extent of 60% as claimed by the petitioner at the time of re-assessment. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.