One B.N.Singh had extensive business interests.
Jai Prakash Singh did number raise an objection before the Income Tax Officer that unless and until numberices to all the other legal representatives are sent, assessment orders cannot be made.
He companyplied with the same.
The succeeding Maharaja appealed against the assessment orders companytending that inasmuch as the numberices were sent in the name of Maharaja of Patiala and number to him as the legal representative of the Maharaja of Patiala, the assessments made were illegal.
The returns filed by Jai Prakash Singh were scrutinized by the Income Tax Officer who also issued numberices under Sections 142 1 and 143 2 to him to appear and produce documents, accounts and other material.
Aruna Devi wife of Rangalal Jajodia and her children.
The returns were signed by Jai Prakash Singh alone number by other legal representatives.
The names of all the legal representatives were already intimated to the Income Tax Officer as found recorded in the orders of the t Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal though the occasion for giving such information is number evident from the record.
The eldest son, Jai Prakash Singh, filed the returns for the said three assessment years on March 17, 1970, November 12, 1970 and October 27, 1971 respectively.
The Income Tax Officer called for a companyy of the Will but it was number produced.
This plea was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, who remitted the matters to the income Tax Officer to companyplete the assessments after numberice to Aruna Devi.
It is also number clear who gave the information regarding the death of B.N.Singh and his legal representatives and in what companynection It is true that the returns were signed only by Jai Prakash Singh and number by the other nine legal representatives, but it should also be remembered that when numberices under Sections 142 1 and 143 2 were issued to Jai Prakash Singh, he appeared through his Authorised Representative and produced the relevant books and accounts on the basis of which assessments were made.
In these returns, Jai Prakash Singh disclosed the income received by late B.N.Singh from all his business interests and properties.
The returns were filed voluntarily disclosing the income received by B.N.Singh during the relevant accounting years by one of his legal representatives inviting an assessment.
He died on April 16, 1967.
They were described as legal representatives of late B.N.Singh.
Assessment orders were made mentioning the names of all the ten legal representatives against the companyumn Name of the Assessee.
He raised this question for the first time in the appeals preferred by him before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter before the Tribunal.
He left behind ten legal representatives companyprising three widows, four sons and three daughters.
Clause b of the said subsection specifies various periods of limitation in respect of the assessment years companycerned herein, it is four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Appeals were preferred by the second wife, Aruna Devi, companytending inter alia that the assessments having been made without numberice to her or the other executor were illegal and invalid.
The companytention was that the numberices were really addressed to the late Maharaja, who was number alive when the said numberices were issued and that they were wrongly served upon him.
The Income Tax officer passed assessment orders describing the assessee as His Highnesslate Maharaja of patiala.
lt may be emphasized that B.N.Singh died after the close of the accounting year relevant to Assessment Year 1967 68 in fact, sixteen days after the companymencement of the Assessment Year 1967 68.
Appeals were filed by Sri Jai Prakash Singh companytending for the first time therein that inasmuch as all the legal representatives of B.N.Singh were number given numberice of the assessment proceedings, the assessments made were illegal and void and must be so declared.
The income Tax Officer thereupon companypleted the assessment describing the assessee as the estate of late Sri Rangalal Jajodia by legal heirs and representatives Sri Shankar Lal Jajodia son of Rangalal Jajodia, Smt.
Assessment was made in the status of individual.
He did number file a return for the Assessment Years 1965 66, 1966 67 and 1967 68.
Returns were filed, signed by the Foreign Minister of patiala.
They were served upon the successor Maharaja.
No objection was raised by Jai Prakash Singh before the Income Tax Officer in the said assessment proceedings that numberice must be given to the other legal representatives of late B.N.Singh.
P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court answering the following question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was companyrect in holding that number service of numberice under section 143 2 of the Income tax Act, 1961, against nine out of the ten legal representatives of the deceased Shri B.N.Singh did number invalidate the assessment orders of the Income tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1965 66, 1966 67 and 1967 68 and that it was at best an irregularity for which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the assessments and it was number a case fit for cancellation of the assessments?
