5,000/ for the year 1950 51.
Against the orders passed by the High Court the Commissioner appeals to this Court.
10,000/ for the year 1949 50 and Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 3, 1957 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
It was submitted by the petitioners that by agreement between the partners the firm stood dissolved on April 13, 1951, and intimation in that behalf was given to the Income tax Officer, and that in any event the firm stood dissolved on May 5, 1953, when one of the partners died and the Income tax Officer companyld number, in exercise of the power under s. 28 1 make an order imposing penalty after dissolution of the firm.
6 to 8 of 1961.
S. Venkataram and K. P. Bhat, for respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
N. Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
20,000/ for the year 1947 48, Rs.
26A of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1947 48, 1949 50 and 1950 51.
The firm was registered under Art.
Four persons carried on business in cloth at Virudhunagar in the name and style of S. V. Veerappan Chettiar Co. hereinafter called the firm.
943 to 945 of 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. These are three appeals with certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Madras against orders passed in Petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari setting aside orders imposing penalty upon the firm of Messrs. V. Veerappan Chettiar Co. passed by the Income tax Officer under s. 28 1 c of the Indian Income tax Act.
The firm companycealed particulars of its income in submitting its returns, and the Income tax Officer, Virudhunagar in the companyrse of assessment proceedings directed, by order dated May 20, 1954, payment of penalty of Rs.
226 of the Constitution for issue of writs of certiorari or other appropriate writs calling for records relating to the orders dated May 20, 1954, passed by the Income tax Officer, Virudhunagar, in respect of the three assessment orders and the record relating to the order of the Commissioner and for quashing the penalty orders were filed by two partners of the firm in the High Court at Madras.
Thereafter, petitions under Art.
Against the orders imposing penalty, one of the partners of the firm moved the Commissioner of Income tax, Madras in revision but without success.
