ALFRED E Vs. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EBENEZER, a Christian, died intestate on 22nd November, 1945. The petitioner and his eight sisters were the children of EBENEZER and his heirs and legal representatives. The income that had accrued to EBENEZER during the account year ending 31st March, 1945, was assessed in the assessment year 1946-47 under the provisions of Section 24-B(2) of the Income-tax Act, after the issue of a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act to the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased EBENEZER. The assessment was completed on 26th March, 1951, and a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner appealed against the order of assessment to the Assistant Commissioner, who substantially confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal a penalty of Rs. 250 was first levied on the petitioner under Section 46(1) of the Act. Subsequently to the termination of the appeal, when the time finally granted for the payment expired on 15th December, 1951, the Income-tax Officer imposed a further penalty of Rs. 10,000 on 8th March, 1952. It was the validity of these orders imposing the penalties under Section 46(1) of the Act that the petitioner challenged by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari.

(3.) TO establish "default" in the payment of the assessed tax, within the meaning of Section 45, two conditions at least have to be satisfied :(1) Failure to pay the amount specified in the notice of demand issued under Section 29, and (2) that failure must be that of an assessee. Section 29 runs: