MADDULA APPA RAO Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Income Tax Officer, Eluru end the Collector, West Godavari District to refrain from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the order of the first respondent for collection of revenue in a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 for the year 1943-44 as also the penalty for the year 1944-45.

(2.) The petitioner, who was the kartha of a Hindu undivided family was assessed for the accounting year ending with 4-4-1943 on a total income of Rs. 1,22,915.00. For the next year, i.e., for 1944-45, the assessable income was fixed at Rs. 46,951.00- and tie was directed to pay taxes of Rs. 53,628-12-0 and Rs. 15,194-7-0 for the years 1943-44 and 1944-45 respectively. The assessment was made on 30-3-1946 and the assessee was given some time for payment of the tax. The tax seems to have been paid within the prescribed time and there is no controversy regarding that matter now. What happened was that a week before the final order of assessment was made It came to the knowledge of the Income Tax Officer concerned that the assessee had concealed some part of his income. This has led to his starting proceedings under Section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He called upon the assessee to show cause either in writing or in person as to why penalty should not be levied for the reasons stated in the notice. Ultimately, penalties to the tune of Rs. 20,000.00and Rs. 4,000.00 for the years 1943-44 and 1944-45 respectively were levied. The failure to pay these amounts had resulted in the attachment being made of the properties belonging to the petitioner. It is to quash these imposts that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 228 of the Constitution is invoked. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, the assessee died with the result that his legal representatives have been brought on record.

(3.) In these writ petitions, four contentions are urged; namely, (1) that Section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act which enables the officer concerned to levy the penalty for concealment of particulars of income is ultra vires: (2) that the impost is invalid for the reason that the terms of Section 28(3) of the Income Tax Act were not complied with; (3) that the penalty was not levied within a reasonable time, the Income Tax-Officer taking as long as nine years to do it; and (4) that the penalties could not be collected from the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. We will take up the contentions in seriatim.