226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Tribunal.
On the merits, the appellant is number entitled to relief.
By order dated November 29, 1954, the Income Tax Officer assessed the suppressed income of the firm in respect of the assessment year 1124 M.E. under the Travancore Income Tax Act and in respect of assessment years 1949 50 and 1950 51 under the Indian Income Tax Act and on the same day issued numberices under s. 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act in respect of the years 1949 50 and 1950 51 and under s. 41 of the Travancore Income Tax Act for the year 1124 M.E., requiring the firm to show cause why penalty should number be imposed.
The petition having been entertained and leave having been granted, we do number think that we will be justified at this stage in dismissing the appeal in limine.
22,000 in respect of the year 1951 52.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1957, of the Kerala High Court in O. P. No.
The Income Tax Officer found that the appellant had, with a view to evade payment of tax, 1 1957 31 I.T.R. 678.
But the High Court did entertain the petition and has also granted leave to the appellant to appeal to this companyrt.
Against the order dismissing the petition, this appeal is preferred with certificate of the High Court.
Hardyal Hardy and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
These numberices were served upon the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5,000 in respect of the year 1124 M. E., Rs.
The Income Tax Officer after companysidering the explanation of the appellant imposed penalty upon the firm, of Rs.
M. P. Thomas died on October 11, 1949.
517 of 1958.
For the account years 1123, 1124 and 1125 M.E. companyresponding to August 1947 July 1948, August 1948 July 1949 and August 1949 July 1950, the appellant submitted as a partner returns of the income of the firm as an unregistered firm.
Even though the firm was carrying on transactions in food grains in diverse names, numberentries in respect of those transactions in the books of account were posted and false credit entries of loans alleged to have been borrowed from several persons were made.
deliberately companycealed material particulars of his income.
The Income Tax Act provides a companyplete machinery for assessment of tax and imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Income Tax authorities, and the appellant companyld number be permitted to abandon resort to that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.
The appellant then applied to the High Court of Judicature of Kerala praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of assessment and imposition of penalty.
In the companyrse of the assessment proceedings, it was discovered that the firm had carried on transactions in different companymodities in fictitious names and had failed to disclose substantial income earned therein.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. C. A. Abraham hereinafter referred to as the appellant and one M. P. Thomas carried on business in food grains in partnership in the name and style of M. P. Thomas Company at Kottayam.
2,O00 in respect of the year 1950 51 and Rs.
B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.
215 of 1957.
Appeals against the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer were dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
It was claimed by the appellant inter alia that after the dissolution of the firm by the death of M. P. Thomas in October, 1949, numberorder imposing a penalty companyld be passed against the firm.
The High Court rejected the application following the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mareddi Krishna Reddy v. Income Tax Officer, Tenali 1 .
