INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. MURAMREDDY SULOCHANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are directed against the judgment of our learned brother, Justice Gopalkrishna Nair allowing Writ petitions Nos. 765/1963 and 1716 to 1724/64 and quashing the notice issued by the income-tax department.

(2.) The facts leading to these appeals are : One Duvvuri Narayana Reddi of Kota village of Gudur Taluk in the Nellore district was an income-tax assessee for many years. He died on March 26, 1948, leaving behind him his widow, Ramanamma, and five daughters. On Narayan Reddis death, his widow Ramanamma, succeeded to his estate. Subsequently, misunderstanding appear to have arisen between Ramanamma and her daughters. One of the daughters, Sridevamma, instituted O. St. No. 20/1953 in the subordinate judges court, Nellore, for removal of Ramanamma from the management of the estate and for appointment of a receiver. In that suit, a commissioner was appointed to take an inventory. The commissioner went to the house where the widow lived and during the course of taking the inventory, he found an unregistered will dated March 4, 1948, in the safe. Under that will substantial portion of the properties were given to the five daughters by Narayana Reddi and nothing was given to the widow. There was also some provision for certain charitable endowments and also for the maintenance of his (testators) mother. Under the will, two executors (sons No. 20/1953) were appointed. On the discovery of the will, the widow Ramanamma instituted O. S. No. 61/1953 in the subordinate judges court, Nellore, for a declaration that the will was not true and genuine. The husband of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 75/1953 in the sub-court, Nellore, for the administration of the estate of the testator. During the pendency of these three suits, it appears, some persons tried to bring about a compromise between the parties. They succeeded in bringing the parties together and ultimately a compromise memo was filed in O. S. No. 76/1953, and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise on April 15, 1954. As per the compromise decree, the properties was divided by metes and bounds between the mother and the five daughters. It also created certain charities and gave some properties to Narayana Reddys mother, which on her death were to devote on her daughters (i.e., sisters of Narayana Reddi). The compromise also provided for setting apart properties for conducting the charities and kainkaryams in the name of late Narayan Reddi and for that purpose a committee know as Narayans Reddys and for that purpose a committee known as Narayana Reddi and the two sons-in-law who would be marrying his two daughters in future were to constitute themselves into a body with the authority to co-opt three other members and for this purpose a sum of Rs. 75,000 was set apart payable to the trust committee. In pursuance of the compromise decree, the parties have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective shares allotted to them under it. Narayana Reddis widow died on September 5, 1956. Before her death, she bequeathed her share of the properties to her last three daughters. After the death of Narayan Reddi, the income-tax authorities dealt with the widow of Narayan Reddi as his sole legal representative. On that basis, the authorities collected from her the tax due on the estate of the deceased, Narayana Reddi. They also took reassessment proceeding under section 34 of the Act and collected the tax amount from her. On March 17, 1962, Sulochanamma, who is one of the daughters of Narayana Reddi and who had obtained a share of the estate of Narayana Reddi under the compromise decree, was served with the impugned notice under section 34 of the Act as the legal representative of the late Narayana Reddi. On receipt of these notice, she came to this court asking for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226 of the Constitute to prevent the respondents from taking further proceedings. It appears that initially she filed only one writ petition. On the respondents that one writ petition was not sufficient to quash the notices issued in respect of ten assessment years, she filled ten writ petitions for the years 1941-42 to 1949-50. The respondents filed counter only in the first writ petition and did not file any subsequent counters.

(3.) The main grounds urged in the writ petitions were : (1) the petitioner is not a legal representative of the deceased, Narayana Reddi; (2) the notice in respect of the assessment year 1949-50 was invalid; (3) even if the petitioner was assumed to be a legal representative of the deceased, Narayana Reddi, the notice in question were bad because all the legal representative of the deceased, the Narayana Reddi, were not given notice; and (4) on going into the facts it will be seen that there is no good ground for reassessing the income of Narayana Reddi. These grounds were resisted by the income-tax authorities on the pleas that the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased, Narayana Reddi, and that none of the grounds mentioned in the writ petitions was valid and that, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.