INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. TIPPALA YERRAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed as against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S. No. 163/81 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam whereby the suit filed by the Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam - the appellant herein/plaintiff, was dismissed. The said suit was filed to set aside the claim order made by the Tax Recovery Officer in O.P. No. 136/79-80 dated 29-4-1980. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues, ultimately came to the conclusion that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality and accordingly the suit was dismissed directing the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal had been preferred.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record in proper perspective. The learned Standing Counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the 5th respondent was a partner representing the joint family as such, the respondents 1 to 4 being the sons of the 5th respondent are liable under the theory of pious obligation. The learned Standing Counsel had strongly relied upon the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. Piara, 1980 AIR(SC) 1271 and J. Devaraja Rao and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer, Anantapur, 1970 AIR(AP) 426 and made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the applicability of the doctrine of pious obligation and also on the aspect of the illegality of the contract as such hence the findings are to be set aside and the Appeal to be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, the Learned Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam and would m that in the light of the convincing findings recorded by the trial Court, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with and the Appeal to be dismissed.