But in the next succeeding year 1954 55 it disclosed a profit and submitted a return.
The four partners preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the levy of interest and penalty was unauthorised.
Against the decision of the Single Judge the appellants preferred appeals before the Division Bench.
662, 663, 679, 664, 665, 667, 666, 669 and 671 of 1962 respectively.
314 to 322 of 1966 Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 25, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos.
Therefore, the Income Tax Officer, Kanpur while assessing them under section 23 of the Act held that they were liable to pay interest under section 18A 8 and determined the amount payable by each in respect of each of the years on the basis of the income found taxable in the regular assessment.
These appeals were dismissed by a companymon judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 25th March, 1963.
The respondents thereafter moved the Allahabad High Court for grant of a writ to quash the orders of the Income Tax Officer and of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal.
The partners applied in revision to the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 33A 2 , but the revision applications were dismissed.
But the regular assessment was made for this year only on 27 2 1958.
In addition, he applied the provisions of section 18A 9 b and imposed a penalty for each year of assessment by virtue of section 28 read with section 18A 9 b of the Act.
It is number disputed that numbere of the four partners sent any estimate of the tax payable on their income as required by section 18A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 or pay the tax in advance.
The assessment order for 1958 59 was in fact made on 19 2 1959.
The present appeals are brought to this Court by special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 25th March, 1963 in the batch of appeals affirming the judgment of the Single Judge dated 25th May, 1956 in C.W.M. No.
All the four partners filed returns individually on 27 9 1954 and they were provisionally assessed on their returns on 14 10 1954.
For the year 1953 54, the firm submitted a return showing loss.
Thereafter they were carrying on the business in partnership.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
But the appeals were dismissed.
The ,firm companytinued to make profits in the subsequent years 1955 56, 1956 57, 1957 58 and 1958 59 and the partners filed returns for their income for each of these years and were regularly assessed for these years under s. 23 sometime after 27 2 1958.
P. Goyal, Sobhag Mal Jain and P.N. Pachauri, for the respondents in all the appeals .
K. Aiyer and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant in all the appeals.
The respondents in these appeals are four persons Mani Ram, Jagmohan, Kishandas, Bhagirathmal partners of Shri Kishan Das, DhankUtti, Kanpur.
expression any person who has number hitherto been assessed in section 18A 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Act after the Income Tax Amendment Act Act 67 of 1949 should be interpreted so as to include a person who has only been provisionally assessed under section 23B of that Act.
They were members of a joint Hindu farmily carrying on business until they became divided in the middle of assessment year 1953 54.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. In these appeals which have been heard together a companymon question of law arises for determination, that is, whether the.
