RAJAGOPALAN, J.

One of the sources of income of the assessee, an undivided Hindu family which the Rajah of Nilambur represented in the relevant assessment years, was the kuttikanam, which was virtually the sale price of timber from the private forests of the assessee. We are concerned in these proceedings only with that portion of the income which the assessee obtained from his forests that stood on the lands on which he paid land revenue to the Government. It should be convenient to refer to that income in the rest of this judgment as " forest income " Down to and inclusive of the assessment year 1940-41 both the assessee and the department treated this forest income as agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, exempt from income-tax. In the assessment year 1941-42 also the forest income was not taxed. The circumstances under which the income under this head was left untaxed that year were explained by the Income-tax Officer in his assessment order dated 28th February 1942, an extract of which was furnished by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of its statement

In 1942-43 the Income-tax Officer included the forest income in the assessable income of the assessee and completed the assessment on 9th March, 1943. He followed the decision of the Patna High Court in Province of Bihar v. Pratap Udai Nath. That judgment was rendered in April, 1941. The Income-tax Officer followed this up by the issue of notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42 and tax the forest income which had escaped assessment in those three years. The objections of the assessee were overruled, and the forest income was taxed. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner modified the quantum of income and the tax for 1939-40 but otherwise confirmed the orders of the Income-tax Officer. A further appeal to the Tribunal failedUnder section 66(1) of the Act the Tribunal referred the following questions of law to this court

(i) Whether the Patna High Court's decision in Province of Bihar v. Pratap Udai Nath constitutes definite information within the meaning of section 34 (as it stood before its amendment in 1948) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?

(ii) Whether the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer to assess forest income on that basis are legally valid, especially as the department had hitherto treated such income as exempt from income-tax ?

(iii) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under section 34 taken by the Income-tax Officer for assessment of 1941-42 are valid in view of the reservation in the original assessment that he would take action under section 34 in due course

What the Income-tax Officer recorded in his assessment order dated 28th February, 1942, should really be sufficient to answer all the three questions in favour of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer stated

" In the course of the proceedings, it was found that the family derived kuttikanam from forests on lands assessed to land revenue, which amounted to Rs. 29, 853-15-3 in the account year. This amount was not included in the return made by the assessee. The auditor raised a preliminary objection that the income from forests on lands assessed to land revenue is agricultural income and therefore exempt from tax. I differed and held that the said income did not fall within the meaning of agricultural income contemplated by section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, and, therefore, such income was taxable. Upon this, Mr. Karikar requested further time to go into the whole question and put in their written objection. Time was granted for filing the objections and also to prepare a fresh allocation of the expenses against the income from forests on both assessed and unassessed lands. The auditors filed their objections in writing but requested that they might be granted further time for preparing a fresh allocation of expenses. We have come almost to the end of the fina