But the new section went very much beyond rectifying the defect in the statute which necessitated the amendment.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, praying that writs of certiorari or other appropriate writs be issued quashing the order dated June 25, 1958 of the Income tax Officer under s. 46 5 .
They founded their petitions on two grounds i that after the Income tax Officer recorded an order on June 30, 1952 under s. 25 A 1 that the family had disrupted with effect from November 2, 1946, steps taken for recovery of the amount of tax assessed without an appropriate order under s. 25 A 2 were invalid, and ii arrears of tax due by the erstwhile Hindu undivided family companyld number be recovered from remuneration earned by them as employees of the Company.
The High Court held that the order on the claim made under s. 25 A 1 on June 30, 1952 was given a clear retrospective operation, and the Income tax Officer was bound to give effect to that order recognising the partition and to follow up the companysequences which flowed from the order.
if at the time of making the assessment the family was divided.
Income received by a Hindu undivided family companyld number therefore be assessed and companylected from the members of the family.
To rectify what was obviously a lacuna, the Legislature incorporated s. 25 A for assessment and enforcement of liability to tax income received by a Hindu undivided family, which was numberlonger in existence at the date of assessment.
Absence of this machinery was more acutely felt because of s. 14 1 , which provided that tax shall number be payable by an assessee in respect of any sum which he received as a member of a Hindu undivided family.
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated August 3, 1961 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
Appeals prepared against the orders of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal proved unsuccessful.
Under the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, as it originally stood, a Hindu undivided family was regarded by s. 3 as a unit of assessment, but numbermachinery was set up for levying tax or for enforcing liability to tax on the members of the family, if before the order of assessment the family was divided.
On May 20, 1946, Venkatanarsu claimed before the Additional Income tax Officer, Cuddapah that the property of the Hindu undivided family had been partitioned among the members indefinite portions.
Thimmayya and Venkatanarsu then lodged petitions under Art.
N. Rajagopala Sastri, A. Ramachandran for R. Gopala kkrishnan, for the respondent in both the appeals .
49 and 50 of 1960.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, N. D. Karkhanis and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant in both the appeals .
65,750 in the aggregate for the five years.
Proceedings for assessment of tax due by the Hindu undivided family for the years 1941 42, 1942 43, 1944 45, 1945 46 and 1946 47 were pending at the time when the Hindu undivided family was disrupted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The petitions were decided by Seshachelapati J., in favour of the two petitioners, and the decision was companyfirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
As the tax due was number paid the Income tax Officer made an order under S. 46 5 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 on June 25, 1958 calling upon the Managing Director to withhold the amount of tax due from the salaries payable to the defaulters Thimmayya and Venkatanarsu and to show the same to the credit of the Government of India.
1019 1020 of 1963.
For reasons which do number appear from the record this claim was number disposed of till June 30, 1952.
400 and Verkatanarsu as General Manager at a monthly salary of Rs.
A private limited Company styled Krishnappa Asbestos and Barytes Private Ltd. took over the business of the firm on May 21, 1947 for Rs.
In the meanwhile assessments for the five years in question were made by the Income tax Officer on diverse dates between September 30, 1948 and November 30, 1950, resulting in a tax liability of Rs.
2,04,000.
It is companymon ground that it was number companytended in the appeals that in making the orders of assessment, without disposing of the claim that the family was disrupted in 1946, the Income tax Officer had acted illegally.
On June 30, 1952 the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Madras, made an order under s. 25 A recording that the property of the Hindu undivided family of Krishnappa and his sons was partitioned on November 2, 1946.
In the view of the High Court the petitioners were entitled to insist upon an order for apportionment under s. 25 A 2 and without such an order, proceedings for companylection of tax companyld number be companymenced against them under the proviso to sub s. 2 of s. 25 A. Against the order of the High Court, with certificate of fitness, these two appeals have been preferred by the Income tax Officer, Cuddapah.
They carried on business in mining in the name and style of Krishnappa and Sons.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Krishnappa and his two sons Thimmayya and Venkatanarsu constituted a Hindu undivided family.
Thimmayya obtained employment under the Company as Mines Superintendent at a monthly salary of Rs.
The business of Krishnappa and Sons was taken over by a firm of which the partners were Krishnappa and his two sons.
The family was disrupted in 1946, and all its properties were divided among the members of the family.
