PURSHOTTAM DAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6th November, 1965, the Collector issued notices to Brij Raman Das, Reoti Raman Das, Radha Raman Das, Smt. Kamal Mani Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi requiring them to file returns under the Agrl. I.T. Act for the years 1359 Fasli, 1360 Fasli, 1361 Fasli and 1363 Fasli. The year 1363 fasli ended on 31st July, 1956. These notices were issued because these individuals' agricultural income had escaped assessment. Section 25 of the Agrl. I.T. Act provides for such contingencies. Under it a notice could be issued within three years of the expiry of a particular year. Obviously these notices were beyond time. The Board, however, dismissed the revisions filed by these persons on the finding that the question of partition in their family was pending consideration in courts and, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the issuance of the notices on 6th November, 1965, were, in law, proceedings in continuation of the previous proceedings relating to partition in the family. At the instance of the assessee, the Board has referred for our opinion the following two questions of law :

(2.) IN relation to the first question, the facts are that the family, of which Purshottam Das was the head, suffered a partition in 1948. IN 1355 Fasli, the Collector accepted the partition and for that year made separate assess ments on the individual members. The matter went up in revision and the Board ultimately held that the assessee had failed to establish the parti tion and it allowed the revision on 30th August, 1951. This court rejected an application for reference arising out of that order. Ultimately, the matter went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a question of law did arise and required the High Court to call for a reference. When the matter came back to the High Court, the reference was called for and ultimately the High Court allowed it and held that the partition of the family had been established.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the notices issued for the years in question were beyond three years. The proceedings consequent on these notices were without jurisdiction. Section 15(3) requires the issuance of a notice during the year in question. It provides :