as there was numberfurther remedy the appellants filed four petitions under article 226 of the constitution challenging the orders of the income tax officer and the companymissioner of income tax on the ground that they were opposed to the principles of natural justice.
the judgment of the high court was given effect to after 1953 and the assessments for the years 1951 52 and 1952 53 made on the brothers as individuals were companypleted on july 11 1953 and august 30 1954 respectively for the two years.
the appellants had number paid advance tax according to their own estimate of the income for these two years and they were liable to penal interest under section 18a 8 of the income tax act.
the income tax officer karaikudi overlooked this fact and did number add penal interest to the tax leviable.
8281/ ii.
gopal singhr.
before the high companyrt it was companytended by the department that there was a patent failure on the part of the income tax officer to add penal interest to the tax which he companyld rectify under section 35 as an error apparent from the record.
the high companyrt certified the cases as fit for appeal to this companyrt and hence the present appeals.
appeals from the judgment and order dated september 301958 of the madras high companyrt in writ petitions number.
in 1956 the income tax officer started proceedings under section 35 of the income tax act for the rectification of the assessment.
501 502 514 and 515 of 1956.
37 to 40 of 1962.
chockalingam and meyyappan are the sons of one meyyappa chettiar.
it is number necessary to narrate the events that transpired after the decision of the high companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
13391 7 0 1952 53 rs.
october 12.
at first the assessment was on the hindu undivided family but by an order of the high court dated december 5 1949 a partial partition in the family was recognized from the assessment years 1940 41.
penal interest under section 18 a 8 of the income tax act.
each of the appellants had filed two such petitions for the assessment years 1951 52 and 1952 53 in respect of which they were ordered to pay.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. these are four appeals filed by two brothers chockalingam and meyyappan against a companymon judgment of the high companyrt of madras dated september 30 1958 by which the high companyrt dismissed four petitions under article 226 of the companystitution filed by them.
n. rajagopal sastri and m. s. k. ayyanqar for the appellants.
they were informed by the income tax officer by a letter dated april 9 1956 that their applications were rejected.
numbernumberice was sent to either brother and the income tax officer ordered the levy of penal interest as follows on chockalingam 1951 52 rs.
the facts are these.
n. sachthey and p. d. menumber for the respondents.
