PARAMESWARAN NAMBUDIRIPAD Vs. EXPENDITURE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a karnavan of a Namboodiri Illom known as Poomulli Mana governed by the Madras Nambudiri Act. THE petitioner alleges that there was a partition in his illom on March 30, 1958, into 29 shares, and that the petitioner has, thereafter ceased to be the karnavan or manager of the illom. On July 21, 1958, the respondent, the Expenditure-tax Officer, A-Ward, Palghat, issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as " the Act "), calling upon the petitioner to file a return of expenditure of the illom in respect of the assessment year 1958-59. THE petitioner replied by his letter dated August 11, 1958, that the Act did not apply to his illom, as the illom ceased to exist consequent on the partition effected on March 30, 1958, and the Act came into force only on April 1, 1958. THE petitioner also objected to the notice stating that he was not the karuavan of the illom. Some correspondence followed between the petitioner and the respondent; and it finally ended in a best jugment assessment made by the respondent on April 20, 1959. THE respondent also issued a notice on the petitioner to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on him for not filing a return as required by the Act. THEreupon the petitioner filed two writ petitions in this court; one was O. P. No, 645 of 1959 to quash the order of assessment and the other was O. P. No. 646 of 1959 to quash the notice for imposing penalty. THE petitioner had also filed an appeal from the order of assessment. In the meanwhile the petitioner seems to have made representations to the Commissioner of Income-tax and Expenditure-tax against the alleged irregularities occurred in making the best judgment assessment and also in issuing the penalty notice to him. In the light of the discussions which the petitioner's representative had with the Commissioner, the petitioner withdrew O. P. No. 645 of 1959 ; and it was accordingly dismissed on December 22, 1959. THE Commissioner then wrote exhibit P-2, dated February 17, 1960, to the petitioner stating that he was instructing the Expenditure-tax Officer to cancel the penalty notice as soon as the original assessment was set aside and asking the petitioner to withdraw the other writ petition also. Accordingly, O. P. No, 646 of 1959 was withdrawn, and that was also dismissed. On January 6, 1961, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed an order, exhibit P-3, allowing the petitioner's appeal from the best judgment assessment. Exhibit P-3, states that the assessing authority wrote to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stating that the various defects pointed out by the petitioner had to be examined afresh and the assessment has to be set aside for disposal de novo. Exhibit P-3 was passed on that basis and for the above purpose. Accordingly the respondent took proceedings against the petitioner for fresh assessment; but the petitioner does not seem to have properly responded. Finally, the respondent issued a notice on August 5, 1966, to the petitioner giving him a further opportunity to file his return and produce his books of accounts, etc., and also to file his objections, if any, to the quantum of expenditure being fixed at Rs. 2 lakhs for the reasons stated in the said notice. THE case was posted for hearing on August 17, 1966, THE petitioner did not comply with the above notice also ; but he applied for time. Finally he filed an objection, exhibit P-5, dated September 15, 1966, to the proposed assessment proceedings. He did not still file any return, not did he produce any evidence. In these circumstances, the respondent, relying on the records of the income-tax assessment of the petitioner, assessed him by the order, exhibit P-1, as karta of a Hindu undivided family on a net taxable expenditure of Rs. one lakh, which he fixed to the best of his judgment. This writ petition has been filed to quash the abotfe assessment order.

(2.) FOUR grounds have been pressed by counsel for the petitioner :

(3.) SECTION 19 of the Act reads: