C V GEORGE Vs. ITO CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short, but important, question of law that falls for decision in this writ petition is whether the term "assessee "occurring in sub-s.(1) of S.222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act, in the context of the definition in S.2(7), and other relevant provisions of the Act, would include the partners of the firm in a case where the assessment under S.143(1) of the Act is in the name of that firm, and the certificate issued under sub-s.(2) of S.222 also is in the name of that firm.

(2.) The facts relevant are few, and are not in dispute. The petitioners are partners of a firm known by name 'Mutual Benefit Corporation, Calicut'. For the assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72 there was arrears of income tax from the firm to the tune of Rs. 70,763/-. Therefore, certificate for recovery under S.222(2) of the Act was issued by the first respondent, Income Tax Officer, Asst. IT, Calicut, on whose file the petitioners and the firm are assessees under the Income Tax Act. On the basis of the tax recovery certificate issued by the first respondent, the second respondent (Income Tax Officer, Collection (Addl.), Calicut), issued Ext. P1 notice No. 46-001-FQ-7570/CLT. dated 29 8 1972 to the petitioners. To Ext. P1 notice the 3rd petitioner filed Ext. P2 reply dated 7-10-1972. Thereafter Ext. P3 reminder was sent by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners adverting to Ext. P2 reply also.

(3.) In this writ petition the relief sought for by the petitioners is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forebear from recovering the tax dues made mention of in Ext. P1. The contentions of the petitioners are many fold. It is contended before me that -