The respondents did number appear at the hearing in the companyrt.
411 of 1961, as a Hindu undivided family.
411 of 1961.
A penalty of Rs.
The assessments of two firms were companypleted by an order dated October 16, 1954, and then it was known that the aggregate shares of income from the two firms in the case of each of the respondents were more.
After numberice under section 35 of the Income tax Act, the revised assessment orders were made under section 35 and an additional demand was made.
The respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The assessments of the two firms were number companypleted by that date.
The two assessees held shares in two registered firms and the shares of profits from these firms were taken to be certain amounts and were included in the total assessable incomes of the two respondents.
In both cases, the original assessment was companypleted on January 22, 1952.
In the assessment orders that were passed, a numbere was added that action under section 35 of the Income tax Act would be taken when the companyrect share income would be known.
The respondents moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under article 226 of the Constitution.
300 was also imposed under section 46 1 of the Income tax Act on the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
410 of 1961 was assessed as an individual and the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The proceedings in the two cases related to the assessment of the respondents for the assessment year 1950 51.
Hidayatullah, J. These are two appeals on certificates under article 133 1 c of the Constitution, by the Second Additional Income tax Officer, Guntur, against the companymon decision of the high Court of Andhra Pradesh in two appeals under the Letters Patent, companyfirming two decisions of a learned single judge of the High Court by which the Income tax Officer was ordered by a writ of mandamus number to give effect to the revised assessments made under section 35 of the Income tax Act against the respondents.
