6,999/12/ and Rs.
1,01,335/ and for the year 1948 49 at Rs.
743 and 748 under Art.
The assessments of these two years were companypleted respectively on November 28, 1950 and February 29, 1951, and the income received from the Madura Knitting Company was included in the assessments under s. 23 5 .
The family was a partner through its manager in a firm styled The Madura Knitting Company, and the share in the profits of the partnership which was registered under the Indian Income tax Act was the principal source of its assessable income.
As the total income assessed far exceeded the estimate of Rs.
It was open to the assessee to submit a revised estimate of his income under s. 18A 2 in respect of the year in question and Ramaswami Iyer who was at the material time the manager availed himself of the option to submit a revised estimate and estimated the income for each of the assessment years 1946 47 and 1948 49 at Rs.
The respondent then moved two petitions Nos.
The Income tax Officer, Madura, issued numberices under s. 18A 1 of the Indian Income tax Act for payment of advance tax on the basis of the preceding years income.
In appeals against the orders of assessment by the Madura Knitting Company, by order dated March 12, 1954 the Income tax Appellate Tribunal reduced the income of the firm, and on that basis reduced the share of the family in the income of the firm for the year 1946 47 to Rs.
The respondent then called upon the Income Tax Officer number to levy interest under s. 18A 6 submitting that the levy was illegal and unjustified, and in the alternative requested that the interest be waived under the powers vested under the 5th proviso to s. 18A 6 which was added by s. 13 of the Indian Income tax Amendment Act 25 of 1953 .
2,83,868/ .
545 and 546 of 1960.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 13, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
The Income tax Officer, Madura, in giving effect to the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the 3rd proviso to s. 18A 6 reduced the interest to Rs.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Madras for writs cancelling the orders imposing liability for payment of interest, companytending that the levy of penal interest was opposed to law and was prima facie, unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3,10,697/ .
Ramaswami Iyer died in 1949 and the respondent M.R. Vidyasagar became the manager of the family.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
32,714/10/ for the year 1948 49, and called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of tax inclusive of interest so adjusted.
83,335/ and for the year 1948 49 to Rs.
743 and 748 of 1954.
The respondent did number appear.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
One Ramaswami Iyer father of the respondent was assessed to income tax in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family.
Under s. 18A of the Indian Income tax Act, the Hindu undivided family was liable to pay advance tax for each of the assessment years 1946 47, 1947 48 and 1948 49.
The Income tax Officer declined to accede to the request and the respondents application to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for cancelling the levy of interest was also rejected.
45,000/ , submitted by the manager of the assessee family, the Income Tax Officer in making the assessment ordered the respondent to pay Rs.
45,000/ .
226 of the Constitution.
The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by SHAH, J. These are two appeals with certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Madras against certain orders passed in Writ Petitions under Art.
January 17.
36,687/ respectively for the assessment years 1946 47 and 1948 49 as interest.
4,358/ for the year 1946 47 and to Rs.
The Income Tax Officer assessed the total income of the Hindu undivided family for the year 1946 47 at Rs.
