SURAJMAL DURGALAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for an appropriate writ or direction on the respondent, the Income-Tax-Officer, 'b' Ward, Jaipur, restraining him from proceeding to realise the amount of Rs. 9,121. 37 Np. said to be due from the petitioner on account of income-tax assessment and penalty.

(2.) THE petitioner is a firm, carrying on business in electrical goods, sanitary fittings and P. W. D. contracts, in the name and style of Messrs. Surajmal Durgalal, having its office situate in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. THE petitioner used to be assessed as a registered firm and consequently the individual partners of the firm were separately assessed for the income accrued to the business. It is alleged that on account of some error on the part of the petitioner's counsel, the application for registration of the petitioner's firm, which was due to be renewed on the 30th of June, 1959, could not be presented in time. It was presented in February, 1960, with the result that the petitioner's application for registration was refused and the Income-tax-Officer proceeded to assess the petitioner as an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1959-60. THE petitioner had shown in its return an income of Rs. 37,183/-but the Income-tax-Officer assessed the petitioner on an income of Rs. 56,260/- and the tax thus levied on the total income as an unregistered firm came to a sum of Rs. 20,285. 09 Np. THE order of assessment was made on the 21st of May, 1960, and is an annexure to the petition. THE petitioner preferred an appeal under sec. 30 of the Income-tax Act challenging the assessment on various grounds. It also filed a separate appeal against the order refusing its prayer for registration. THE latter appeal against the order refusing registration was summarily dismissed on 18th July, 1960; but the other appeal against the order of assessment was disposed of on the 3rd of September, 1960, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who gave a partial relief to the petitioner in respect of the tax assessed. THE petitioner has preferred an appeal against both the appellate order to the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal and these appeals are still pending.