KALAWATI DEVI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition under/Art. 226 of the Constitution by Smt. Kalawati Devi are as follows: Petitioner's husband Shankar Lal Omar, who was being assessed to income-tax in his individual capacity, died on 29th Aug., 1968. On 17th April, 1973, the IT authorities searched business premises No. 49/90 Naughara, Kanpur. They seized assets worth Rs. 9,60,422 which included an amount of Rs. 4,44,742 in cash. The petitioner alongwith her three sons, namely, Sheo Nath, Vishwa Nath and Ram Gopal filed a settlement application before the CIT explaining the source of some of the assets and made an offer that the remaining accumulation may be brought to tax as profits of the business carried on by late Shankar Lal. it is said that eventually a settlement was arrived at between the Department and the legal representatives of Shankar Lal Omar.

(2.) ON 29th Nov., 1973 the ITO issued notices addressed to late Shankar Lal Omar though the legal representatives Kalawati Devi, Sheo Nath, Vishwa Nath and Ram Gopal in forming them that he had reasons to believe that their income chargeable to tax for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1969-70 had escaped assessment and called upon them to file revised returns of their income in prescribed form for purposes of reassessment. Sheo Nath then filed fresh returns for various years in accordance with the settlement that had been arrived at between the parties. The ITO accepted those returns and vide his order dt. 20th Dec., 1973 he assessed the taxable income of late Shanker Lal Omar for various assessment years thus : 1965-66 Rs. 60,000

(3.) THE petitioner has now approached this Court for relief under/Art, 226 of the Constitution. She has impugned the validity of the assessment orders dt. 20th Dec., 1973 as also that of the orders imposing penalty mentioned above. She claims that in the circumstances of the case neither the tax reassessed nor the penalty imposed in the name of Shankar Lal Omar can be recovered from her personally or from the assets belonging to her seized by the IT authorities in the raid which took place on 17th April, 1973 which assets they are still retaining with them.