30,000 and Rs.
The plea that the omission was due to the mistake of the agent was reiterated.
30,000 was extorted from him under a threat of legal proceedings which were without jurisdiction and that he had companymitted numberoffence.
The certificate for leave to appeal to this Court was granted on 23rd February, 1951.
30,000 emanated from P. B. Deshmukh himself after he had companysulted his companynsel and that there was numbercoercion exercised on him in companypounding the offence.
30,000 to the taxing authorities and this was agreed to by the Assistant Commissioner.
30,477 by the debtors were due to the mistake of his agent, one Raghunath Choudhary, who had been dismissed since 1929.
The circumstances giving rise to the appeal are shortly these P. B. Deshmukh, deceased, number represented on record by his legal representatives and S. B. Deshmukh, both companysins, formed a joint Hindu family of which the former was the manager.
On the 3rd July, 1930, M. K. Hirde, who held a general power of attorney from the two companysins, filed a return which was signed and verified by him as agent.
Not being satisfied with his explanation, the Income tax Officer recommended P. B. Deshmukhs prosecution and the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax issued numberice to him to show cause why his prosecution in respect of these omissions should number be sanctioned.
For facility of the management of business S. B. Deshmukh managed money ending shops at Kelod and Rejegaon, while P. B. Deshmukh managed the shop at Badegaon.
Upon these findings the claim was dismissed.
In January, 1934, the two companysins filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
5,331 1 3 as interest, against the Secretary of State for India in Council.
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1945, of the High Court of Nagpur upholding the dismissal of the suit by the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 30th June, 1938.
On the 1st of April, 1930, the Income tax Officer Nagpur, issued a numberice under section 22, sub section 2 , of the Income tax Act against the three shops of the firm calling for the return of the total income of the joint family during 1928 29.
The Assistant Commissioner examined P. B. Deshmukh on 13th December, 1930, when he admitted that he had companycealed income of over Rs.
The ground of the claim was that P. B. Deshmukhs statement of 13th December, 1930, was incorrectly recorded and that the sum of Rs.
Pursuant to a numberice issued under section 23 2 by the Income tax Officer, the account books of the firm for 1924 29 were produced and P. B. Deshmukh was examined on oath by the Income tax Officer on the 23rd November, 1930, in respect of certain omissions in the return.
The payment was made in two instalments and the matter was closed.
The suit was resisted and it was pleased in defence that both the statements of P. B. Deshmukh dated 23rd November, and 13th December, 1930, were companyrectly recorded, that the proposal for companypounding the offence on payment of Rs.
