INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. AZIZUL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment which Mr. Justice B. C. Mitra had delivered on the 14th March, 1966, on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writs for cancelling, rescinding, withdrawing and commanding the revenue authorities concerned to forbear from giving effect to certain notices dated February 20, I960, issued under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922.

(2.) The respondents are the legal representatives of one Md. Safiulla who died on March 23, 1953. The deceased owned several houses and other properties at Tinsukia in Assam and was assessed under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, at Dibrugarh.

(3.) On December 24, 1954, the ITO, Dibrugarh, issued several notices under Section 34(1A) of the Act on some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased on the ground that there was reason to believe that incomes for the years 1940-41 to 1947-48 had escaped assessment. The persons who were served with these notices made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution on February 18, 1957, challenging the legality of the proceedings proposed to be initiated under Section 34(1A) of the Act on the ground that these notices had not been served upon all the legal representatives of the deceased. They obtained a rule nisi from this court in Civil Rule No. 609 of 1957. The rule was disposed of by Mr. Justice Bachawat by his Lordship's judgment delivered on the 9th June, 1959. The rule was made absolute to the extent that the ITO was directed to forbear from proceeding to assess or reassess the deceased's income for the relevant years without serving notices on the other legal representatives of the deceased in accordance with law. Mr. Justice Bachawat made it clear that it would be open to the ITO to proceed to assess 'or reassess the income, profits or gains in accordance with Section 34(1 A) of the Act, after two of the deceased's representatives, namely, Hakima Khatoon and Gulabi Bibi, had been served in accordance with law. The two notices on Hakima Khatoon and Gulabi Bibi were not served. But the ITO, Central Circle XV, the appellant No. 2 herein, issued several notices under Section 34 of the Act for the years 1940-41 to 1947-48.