The four petitions were heard together by the High Court and were dismissed on March 5, 1954.
Thereupon Y. Narayana Chetty, one of the partners of the Prabhat Textiles filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras, No.
As a result of this finding, respondent I cancelled the registration of the said firm under r. 6B of the Income tax Rules and passed fresh orders of assessment against the said firm on the basis that it was an unregistered firm for the assessment years 1943 44 and 1944 45 on August 14, 1952, and February 25, 1953, respectively.
It appears that for the purpose of assessing the income of these firms for the years 1943 44 and 1944 45, respondent 1 was satisfied on making enquiries that each of the three firms was a separate entity and so separate assessment orders were passed in respect of the income of each one of them for the said two years.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 5, 1954, of the Madras High Court, in Writ Petitions Nos.
613 and 629 of 1952 and 201 and 202 of 1953.
317 to 320 of 1957.
201 of 1953 in regard to the proceedings and assessment order for the assessment year 1944 45.
The petitioners then applied for and obtained from the High Court a certificate under Art.
All the three firms were carrying on business in yarn and cloth and all of them were registered under s. 26A of the Act.
Subsequently on August 14, 1951, respondent I issued numberice against the firm of Prabliat Textiles under s.34 of the Act.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellants.
N. Kripal, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for respondent No.
629 of 1952 and 202 of 1953 in respect of the proceedings taken and fresh assessment orders passed against the two remaining firms for the assessment years 1943 44 and 1944 45 respectively.
Similar action was taken by respondent I in respect of the two other firms on the same dates.
It companysisted of two partners, Chilla Pitchayya and Bellapu Audeyya.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals number.
The same Chilla Pitchayya also filed Writ Petitions Nos.
Chilla Pitchayya had started another firm in the name and style of G. Pitchayya Co. with another partner R. Subba Rao.
This firm was formed on December 1, 1941, and it as dissolved by a decree of the civil companyrt Passed oil December 22, 1949, the dissolution having taken effect from January 1, 1949.
Bellapu Audeyya and.
October 15.
In respect of the same firm Chilla Pitchayya sought for a similar relief by Writ Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. These four appeals arise from four petitions filed against the Income tax Officer , Nellore Circle, Nellore, respondent 1, in respect of the proceedings taken by him against three firms under s. 34 of the Indian Income tax Act hereinafter called the Act .
The firm M s. Bellapu Audeyya and Chilla Pitchayya was formed on April 20, 1936, and it was dissolved on March 31, 1948.
613 of 1952, against respondent I under Art.
This firm was formed on July 30, 1941, and it was dissolved on March 31, 1949.
226 of the Constitution and prayed that the High Court, should issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the first respondent from companytinuing the proceedings as per his numberice of August 14, 1951, and from enforcing the order of fresh assessment passed in the said proceedings oil August 14, 1952, in regard to the assessment year 1943 1944.
Chilla Pitchayya had also formed another firm along with five other partners which carried on its business in the name and style of Prabbat Textiles.
In the proceedings thus companymenced, respondent I hold that the firm of Prabhat Textiles was a fictitious tirm and that the real partners ,ere C. Pitchayya and B. Audeyya.
