SRINIVASAN J.

This reference arises under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The assessee, Subramania Pillai, executed a settlement deed covering his agricultural properties. In the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer excluded the income from the properties covered by the settlement deed in making an assessment upon the income of the assessee. The Commissioner, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, revised the assessment, holding that the settlement fell within the mischief of section 9(1) of the Act. this revision was made after issuing a notice to the assessee and after hearing the assessee. The result was that the settlement was held to be a revocable settlement, failing within the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act, so that the assessee became liable to be assessed on the income of the properties covered by the settlement as well. On the application of the assessee under section 62 of the Act, the Commissioner has referred the following question for our decision :

"Whether the settlement deed dated June 20, 1955, executed by the assessee is a revocable one within the meaning of section 9(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?"

Section 9(1) and the first proviso thereto read thus :

"Income from settlement, disposition, etc. - In computing the total agricultural income of an assessee all agricultural income arising to any person by virtue of a settlement or disposition, whether revocable or not and whether effected before or after the commencement of this Act, from assets remaining the property of the settlor or disponer, shall be deemed to be the agricultural income of the settlor or disponer and all agricultural income arising to any person by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets shall be deemed to be the agricultural income of the transferor :Provided that for purposes of this sub-section, a settlement, disposition or transfer shall be deemed to be revocable if it contains any provision for the re-transfer directly or indirectly of the agricultural income or assets to the settlor, disponer or transferor or in any way gives the settlor, disponer or transferor a right to reassume power directly or indirectly over the agricultural income or assets; . . . . . . ."

The question before us is whether the settlement, to the terms of which we shall presently refer, comes within the scope of this section. Broadly stated, this section envisages the following cases : (1) a person may effect a settlement revocable or otherwise of the agricultural income from his property while continuing to the owner of the property; and (2) he may make a revocable transfer of the property itself but continue to be in the receipt of the income therefrom. In the first of these cases, despite the revocability or otherwise of the settlement, so long as the property from which the income is derived continues to be in the ownership of the settlor, the income arising therefrom is deemed to be agricultural income of the settlor notwithstanding that such income has been settled on any other person. In the second case, the asset itself is transferred, but the transfer being revocable, the income arising from the property is deemed to be the income of the transferor. The proviso to the section sets out what shall be deemed to be a revocable transfer. A settlement may contain terms which directly give the power to the settlor to revoke the settlement. In the case of a revocable transfer, the position is quite clear that the income is deemed to be that of the transferor. But the proviso goes further and lays down that though the settlement may not ex facie be revocable, if it contains any provision for the re-transfer of the income to the settlor directly or indirectly, or confers authority upon the settlor to reassume power over the assets or the income, such a transfer shall be deemed to be revocable. Such a deemed revocable transfer is accordingly hit by t