INCOME TAX OFFICER GUDUR Vs. MARAMREDDY SULOCHANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave arise from the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeals Nos. 13 to 22 of 1! 65 on its file. Only one question of law arose for decision in those appeals, the very question arising for decision in these appeals and that question is whether the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (Which will be hereinafter called the Act) in March, 1962 on the respondent and her sisters are valid in law.

(2.) One Narayana Reddy was an income-tax assessee. He died on March 26, 1948, leaving behind him his widow Ramanamma and five daughters. On his death his widow took possession of the estate and was managing it. Subsequently misunderstanding appears to have arisen between her and some of her daughters. One of the daughters by name Sreedevamma filed a suit for removing her mother from management of the estate and for the appointment of a receiver. In that suit a Commissioner was ap pointed to take an inventory. The Commissioner, while taking the inventory, found an unregistered will dated March 4, 1948, in the safe. That will was purported to have been executed by Narayana Reddy. It is said that in that will various dispositions were made including some provision for certain charities. It is further said that two of the sons-in-law of Narayana Reddy were designated therein as the executors. After the discovery of that will the widow Ramanamma instituted a suit challenging the genuineness of that will. One of the sons-in-law of Narayana Reddy instituted another suit for administration of the estate of his father-in-law claiming to be an executor appointed under the will. During the pendency of these suits the parties compromised their disputes and filed a compromise petition on April 15, 1954. A decree in terms of the compromise was made. Under the terms of the compromise the estate of Narayana Reddy was divided between the widow of Narayana Reddy his mother and his five daughters. Some provision for certain charities was also made thereunder and for managing those charities some trustees were appointed. It is said that the parties were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares ever since the compromise decree. Narayana Reddy's widow died on September 5, 1956. Before her death she bequeathed her share in the property to her last three daughters.

(3.) After the death of Narayana Reddy the income-tax authorities dealt with his widow as his sole legal representative. On that basis the authorities collected from her the tax due from the estate of the deceased Narayana Reddy. They also took reassessment proceedings under Sec. 34 of the Act and collected some additional tax from her. On March 17, 1962, the respondent, who is one of the daughters of Narayana Reddy and who had obtained a share in the estate of Narayana Reddy under the Compromise decree referred to earlier, was served with notices under Sec. 34 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of Narayana Reddy for the years 1941-42 to 1949-50. She filed as many as nine writ petitions challenging the validity of the notices served on her. The main question for decision is, as mentioned earlier, whether the said notices are valid.