SHANTIDEVI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that order dated December 22, 1978 (annexure "B"), passed under Section ;143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, dated March 26, 1984 (annexure "F"); notice of demand (annexure "G") and final notice (annexure "I") may be quashed. It is also prayed that the Respondents may be directed not to press for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 18,161 as the petitioner cannot be deemed to be an assessee in default.

(2.) THE petitioner, Smt. Shantidevi, is a partner in the firm, Hiralal Gulabchand Sethi, Ashok Nagar, District Guna. We are concerned with regard to the assessment year 1976-77 and the relevant accounting year ended on Diwali, 1975. THE petitioner submitted a return of total income before respondent No. 1-Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Sagar, showing a total assessable income of Rs. 14,358 which included a share income from the partnership firm, Hiralal Gulabchand, amounting to Rs. 17,692. In the statement attached to the return, a note was given that her two minor daughters, namely, Ku. Lalita and Meena, were admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm, Anandilal Dhannalal Sethi. An amendment was introduced in Section 64 of the Income-tax Act with effect from April 1, 1976, and according to that, a minor's income should be included in the income of the individual. THE petitioner thought that this will not be applicable in her case for the assessment year 1976-77. As such the minor children's income was not shown in the return. Respondent No. 1 made an assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on a total income of Rs. 48,181 including the income accruing to such two minor daughters in the income of the petitioner.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the notices/ orders. All these facts, the petitioner can disclose in reply to notice and the authorities can consider the matter. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents could have been upheld by me if the matter had been decided earlier. But since the matter is pending before this court since 1984 after a lapse of ten year's to remand this case back to the respondent will not be justified as it will be unfair to drive the petitioner from pillar to post.