The Agricultural Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to revise an assessment under Section 26 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act (VII (7) of 1938) if for any reason any agricultural income chargeable to agricultural income-tax has escaped assessment for any financial year, or has been assessed at too low a rate.

Ramaswami, J.

1. This case is stated by the Board of Agricultural Income-tax under Section 25(1) of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act VII (7) of 1938).

2. On 28th December 1945, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of Darbhanga made an order of assessment holding that the agricultural income of Maharaja of Darbhanga was Rs. 37,43,520 for the accounting year 1944-45. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 2,82,192 as capital receipt according to the terms of a zarpeshgi lease. The claim was accepted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer who completed the assessment on 28th December 1945. The Assistant Commissioner approved the assessment and demand notice was issued. The assessee paid two out of three instalments of the amount of tax but, on 22nd March 1946, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued notice under Sec.26 on the ground that agricultural Income from Gaya zarpeshgi lease should have been taxed.

In response to the notice the assessee filed a fresh return and after examination, of the accounts the Agricultural Income-tax Officer determined the net income from the Gaya zarpeshgi lease to be Rs. 2,50,879 and after adding it to the total income imposed a tax of Rs. 39,512 and odd. The assessment was approved by the Assistant Commissioner on 23rd March 1946. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner who held that no Income had escaped assessment and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to apply Sec.26 of the Act. The Commissioner allowed the appeal. On behalf of the State of Bihar, a revision application was filed before the Board of Agricultural Income-tax who has referred the case to High Court under Sec.25 (1) of the Act.

3. The questions referred are: (1) Whether in view of the circumstances of the case, and particularly the manner in which, after due consideration, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer in his first judgment dated the 10th March 1947, had held that the assessee was not liable to be assessed for the receipt on account of the zarpeshgi lease, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to revise his own order under Sec.26 of the Act; and (2) assuming he had the jurisdiction to revise his own order under Sec.26 of the Act, whether the income from the zarpeshgi lease of the assessee was taxable under the Act.

4. The first question is whether the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was competent under Sec.26 of the Act to review the previous order of assessment and to hold that the assessee was liable to be assessed for the income from the properties granted in zarpeshgi lease. On behalf of the assessee, Dr. Sultan Ahmad argued that there was no escape of income from the process of assessment and that Sec.26 has been wrongly applied in this case. It was contended by the learned Counsel that in order to hold that the income had escaped assessment there must have been either some fresh facts brought to the notice of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer or some alteration in the state of the law. It was urged that a mere change of view on the part of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was not sufficient. In my opinion the argument is not correct. Section 26 states-

"If for any reason any agricultural income chargeable to agricultural income-tax has escaped assessment for any financial year, or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, at any time within one year of the end of that financial year, serve on the person liable to pay agricultural income-tax on such agricultural income, 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 reassess such income."

Having regard to the opening words of the section for any reason there is no justification for giving a restricted meaning to the word escape. In its lexicographic sense, the word escape connotes to elude or to succeed in avo