JUDGMENT

M. C. DESAI, C.J. - This is a statement of a case referred by the Revision Board u/s 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act at the instance of the assessee, Abdul Fatteh, and this courts answers are required on the following four questions :

(1) Whether the Boards is empowered by section 22 of the Act to revise an earlier order made by it ?

(2) Whether the return filed by the assessee in respect of the notice u/s 15(3) served on the assessee on the 7th July, 1950, could be treated as a return filed in response to the general notice published u/s 15(1) ?

(3) Whether in the circumstances of the case the Revision Board could lawfully remand the case for fresh assessment ?

(4) Whether an assessment could be lawfully made as mutawalli without prior service of notice in respect of income from endowed properties and on him in his personal capacity in respect of other income ?"

The assessee is the mutawalli of a wakf which owns certain property. There is other property in villages Piprahia and Seharia which is owned by him along with 5 others as proprietors. A general notice u/s 15(1) for the assessment year 1356 fasli was issued but it is not known within what period the assessee were required to file returns of their agricultural income of the previous year 1355 Fasli. Before any return could be filed by the assessee or the co-owners a notice u/s 15(3) was issued by the assessing authority calling upon the assessee and the co-owners to file returns of their agricultural income within a certain period; it seems that the assessing authority treated the property in the two villages also as wakf property and returns of the income derived from all the properties (said to be wakf properties) by the 6 persons were called for. All the 6 persons were treated as individuals deriving income from the properties and not as mutawalli. In reply all of them filed returns showing their shares in the entire income from all the properties, but the assessing authority held that the assessee was the mutawalli and was alone liable to be assessed on entire income from all the properties and on July 7, 1949, assessed him as mutawalli on the entire income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner and contended that he had received no notice to submit a return as a mutawalli and could not be assessed as such on the entire income. The Commissioner repelled the contention saying that no prejudice was caused to him by his not receiving the notice u/s 15(3) as a mutawalli. He, however, found that the property in the two villages was not wakf property but was owned by the assessee and the co-owners in their own rights and on January 23,1950, set aside the assessment order and remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh assessments, one against the assessee as a mutawalli in respect of the income from the wakf property and the other against him and the co-owners in respect of the share of each in the income from the property in villages Piprahia and Seharia. He did not have sufficient data to separate the income of the wakf property from the entire income on which the assessee was assessed and, therefore, he was obliged to remand the case. In the remand order he gave the direction that the income from the wakf property should be assessed against the assessee alone and that fresh assessments be made "in respect of the other two villages by separate proceedings after due notice to the appellant and other owners of those two villages." This order meant that the assessee was to be assessed on the income from the wafk property without any fresh notice. There are 3 Kinds of notices which can be issued by an assessing authority, (1) a notice u/s 15(1), which is the general notice be issued "on or before the 1st day of November, 1948, or on any such day as may be fixed by the State Government, (2) a notice u/s 15(3) which is to be served on every person liable to pay within such period, not being less than 30 days, as may be specified in t