ABDUL HADI, J.

These tax case revisions under section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), are concerned and they were heard together and a common order is passed.

The petitioner in Tax Cases Nos. 63 and 64 of 1993 is the wife of the petitioner in Tax Cases Nos. 65 and 66 of 1993. Tax Cases Nos. 64 and 66 of 1993 relate to the assessment year 1988-89 and Tax Cases Nos. 63 and 65 of 1993 relate to the assessment year 1989-90.

All these four cases arise out of the common order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, date July 16, 1992. Originally, the husband, Ponniah Nadar, and the wife, Ganga Bai, were assessed to agricultural income-tax in respect of the abovesaid two years, separately, one assessment in relation to the husband under section 17(3) of the Act, in respect of the total agricultural income realised by him from an extent of 69.94 acres held by him and another assessment on the wife, Ganga Bai, in respect of the total agricultural income in relation to the another 16.25 acres of agricultural land, standing in her name under section 65 of the Act. In other words, while, in respect of the husband, since the abovesaid holding exceeded 50 acres, regular assessment under section 17(3) of the Act was made, in respect of the wife, compounding assessment was made under section 65 of the Act. But, the Commissioner initiated suo motu action under section 34 of the Act to revise the abovereferred to separate assessments and clubbing them both, in the hands of the husband on the footing that the abovesaid lands of 16.25 acres standing in the name of the wife is actually the property of the husband.

No doubt, he initially made an attempt to make such a revised assessment even with reference to the earlier assessment year 1987-88, but ultimately by the impugned order, he himself held that he could not initiate such an action as it was out of time. So, we are concerned only with the revised assessment made, in relation to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90.The reasoning of the Commissioner, which led to the abovesaid revised assessment can be seen from the following passages in the impugned order :

"Tmt. Ganga Bai owns 6.47 acres of rubber and 0.76 acres of cloves under plantation and 9.02 acres under non-plantation. The advocate has produced copies of purchase deed in respect of properties purchased by Tmt. Ganga Bai. He has also argued that the properties were purchased from the income obtained from the properties given by her parents through settlement deed (stridhana deed) Document No. 5215/18-10-1951 measuring 0.50 acres in S. No. 28/12 of Vilavancode Village. In respect of the properties purchased by Tmt. Ganga Bai there is no evidence how she had acquired the properties.... A perusal of the document (s) shows that except for the settlement of 50 cents in her favour in 1951, all other acquisition of property is after her marriage. Despite a number of notices issued and opportunities given to her, no proof of the independent nature of source of funds for the acquisition of he property by Tmt. Ganga Bai was furnished. No evidence was produced, (viz.) separate bank account in the name of Tmt. Ganga Bai or any other documents showing the details of the transactions based on which she acquired the lands either by way of sale or by mortgaging her stridhana property.... As such, the property has to be presumed to have been acquired out of her husband's income and has to be clubbed with his income." *

It must be noted even at the very outset that as against the abovesaid factual finding of the Commissioner stating,

"Despite a number of notices issued and opportunities given to her no proof of the independent nature of source of funds for the acquisition of the property by Tmt. Ganga Bai was furnished" *

, no ground ever has been taken in these provisions. In effect, the Commissioner has drawn an adverse inference in view of the fact that the abovesaid pr