10,000/ was imposed upon him on March 8, 1952.
The assessment was companypleted on March 26, 1951, and a numberice of demand was issued under s. 29 of the Act.
250/ was imposed upon him under s 46 1 of the Act by the Income tax officer, as he had defaulted in payment of tax on the due date.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 15, 1956, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.
The respondent appealed against the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but during the pendency of the appeal, a penalty of Rs.
For the assessment year, 1946 47, the respondent was assessed under s. 24B 2 of the Income tax Act, after a numberice was issued to him under s.22 2 , ibid.
The respondent then filed a petition under Art.
The High Court held in his favour, and quashed the, two orders imposing penalty but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras challenging the imposition and levy of penalty imposed upon him.
After the appeal was disposed of with very minor modifications, a numberice of demand was again issued to him to pay the tax on or before December 15, 1951.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
N. Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the appellant.
He left behind him the respondent, Alfred, his son, and eight daughters.
404 of 1952.
282 of 1960.
One Ebenezer died intestate on November, 22, 1945, during his year of account which ended on March 31, 1946.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. Whether the legal representative of a deceased person, who is assessed in respect of the total income of the latter person, as if he were the assessee, can be ordered to pay a penalty under s. 46 1 of the India Income tax Act, is the short question that arises in this appeal.
On his default, a second penalty of Rs.
October 20.
