The Revenue called for a companyy of the will which however was number produced.
The assessment was companypleted on 28 February, 1947 on the materials describing the assessee as the estate of late Shri Rangalal Jajodia by legal heirs and re presentatives, Shri Shankarlal Jajodia, son of Rangalal Jajodia, Shrimati Aruna Devi, wife of Rangalal Jajodia and her children.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court the Tribunal heard the appeals on merits on 9 June, 1961 and held that the reassessment made by the Revenue Officer on Aruna Devi, the executrix was valid and that the assessments were saved from the bar of limitation by the second proviso to section 34 3 of the Act.
The assessments were made on 29 October.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment and directed the Revenue Officer to make a fresh assessment on the executors in accordance with section 24B of the Act.
The Revenue on the basis of that information issued numberice to Shankarlal Jajodia asking him to show cause why the assessment of the deceased should number be made on him as the legal representative.
At the hearing of the appeals on 30,, April.
The Revenue Officer however took the view that under section 24B of the Act it was number necessary to go through all the formalities once again and that the assessments were required to be done only for the purpose of inviting objections, if any, to the locus standi of Aruna Devi as the legal representative of the deceased.
1952 more than four years after the end of assessment years 1942 43 and 1943 44 respectively.
1952 Shankarlal Jajodia produced a companyy of the will.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. These appeals are by certificate against the judg ment dated 16 August, 1965 of the High Court of Madras on a reference under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act 1921 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 16, 1966 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
The Tribunal rejected the appeals on the ground that the assessments had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with the direction to give sufficient opportunities to her.
Seven questions were referred to the High Court.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 16 April, 1955 held that the assessments were validly Made on a valid direction by the previous Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
On a reference taken by Aruna Devi to the High Court, the High Court held that the Tribunal ought to have properly disposed of the appeals on all the companytentions raised therein.
It was also companytended that reasonable opportunities were number given to Aruna Devi before the assessments were made.
He however set aside the assessments directing the Revenue Officer, to companyplete them after giving the executrix a fresh opportunity to object to the assessment.
Aruna Devi the executrix accepted the numberice but requested the Revenue Officer to furnish her with companyies of the returns, numberes of examination and companyrespondence between the deceased and the Revenue to enable her to make representations.
Pursuant to that direction the Income tax Officer imitated reassessment proceedings in respect of the year 1948 49 and served a numberice on 5 December, 1957.
Rangalal Jajodia hereinafter referred to as the deceased filed income tax returns for the year 1942 43 and 1943 44 as well as his excess profits tax returns for the companyresponding chargeable accounting periods ending 31 December, 1941 and 31 December, 1942 before the Income tax Officer, Excess, Profits Tax Officer, Madras, Special South Circle.
Ram Kumar Bhuwalka who had refused to act as an executor intimated the fact to the Revenue Officer.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
On receipt of the returns,, the officer issued the requisite statutory numberices to the assessee for production of accounts and also other evidence in support of the returns under sections 22 4 and 23 2 of the Act and under the companyresponding provisions of section 30 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
On, the said view the Revenue Officer companypleted the income tax and excess profits tax assessments on the estate of late Rangalal Jajodia by executors Mrs. Aruna Devi and another.
K. Sen and T. A. Ramachandran, for the appellant in As.
2332 to 2335 of 1966 and the respondent in As.
Rangalal Jajodia companyplied with the aforesaid numberice.
Aruna Devi appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.
Pursuant to the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the Revenue Officer informed the executrix and Ram Kumar Bhuwalka of his proposal to make assessment on them as the legal representatives of Rangalal Jajodia.
Mitra, G. C. Sharma, B. D. Sharma for R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent in C.As.
The assessment orders were served on Shankarlal Jajodia who appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner companytend ing that he was number the legal representative.
The executrix Aruna Devi appealed against the assessments companytending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessments were barred by limitation and that the previous Appellate Assistant Commissioners direction to make assessments on her was invalid.
96 of 1961 .
Rangalal Jajodia was survived by Shankarlal Jajodia son by a predeceased wife, Aruna Devi, the second wife and children by the second wife.
Shankarlal Jajodia however performed the funeral obsequies for the deceased.
171 of 1962 Reference No.
Shankarlal Jajodia objected to the companyrse stating that he was number the legal representative and that his step mother Aruna Devi and Ram Kumar Bhuwalka as the executrix and executor respectively were the proper persons on whom proceedings were to be taken.
But before the assessment to the income tax and excess profits tax companyld be made Rangalal Jajodia died on 11 January 1946.
2332 to 2335 and 2336 to 2339 of 1966.
2336 to 2339 of 1966 .
2332 to 2335 of 1966 and the appellant in C.As.
2336 to 2339 of 1966 .
Shankar Lal Jajodia was disinherited under the will.
Rangalal Jajodia had made a will on 16 April, 1945 whereby Aruna Devi and one Ram Kumar Bhuwalka were executor and executrix respectively.
In Murlidhars case supra the assessee appealed against an assess ment order and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the income was received in the previous accounting year and directed that the amount should be deleted from the assessment year 1949 50 and included in the assessment year 1948 49.
