In an appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the order of the Income tax Officer dated January 28, 1960 reliance was placed on the Civil Court partition decree also.
While doing so, he traversed the entire allegations in the petition by adopting an ingenious method.
412002 was being operated by the Receiver.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19 10 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appln.
Notices of the enquiry under section 25A were served on all the members of the family.
806 of 1961 in which the preliminary partition decree was passed on June 30, 1965, respondent Kantilal had been appointed as a re ceiver Later on one Mr. Bhatt was appointed Receiver.
Hence tills appeal to this Court.
A large sum of tax and penalty became due as the demands from time to time were partly paid.
Notices were being issued and served under sections 22 and 23 of the Income tax Act, 1922 for the assessment years which were governed by the said Act.
Assessments were also made against the Hindu Undivided family, sometimes treating it as Association of Persons or Unregistered Part nership Firm as per returns filed from time to time, for the subsequent years upto the assessment year 1965 66.
At the enquiry the statements of various persons including the appellant were recorded by the Income tax Officer.
Copies of all the assessment orders were enclosed with the writ petition aS Annexure I companylectively.
Appeals taken to the Tribunal from some of the assessment orders were also dismissed.
It is asserted that in the year 1961 a suit for partition had also been filed and the City Civil Court Ahmedabad passed a decree for partition on June 30, 1965.
One BapalaI Purshottamdas Modi was the head of a Hindu Undivided family.
He, by his order, dated January 28, 1960 disallowed the claim under section 25A of the Income tax Act, 1922.
In respect of the assessment years 196.2 63 onwards numberices were.
A Savings Bank Account No.
In a single writ petition rambling allegations were made challenging the multifarious proceedings and the orders on various grounds and the following prayers were made a declaring void and illegal and quashing the proceedings of the income tax authorities making assessments on Hindu Undivided Family, Association of persons and unregistered partnership firm afore said for the years beginning from the assessment year 1955 56 and also the proceedings for the recovery of the taxes so assessed, and b quashing the orders of the income tax Au thorities refusing to record partition and direct ing the Respondent and his Subordinates to record under Section 25A of the Act that the erstwhile joint family property has been divided or parti tioned in definite portions, each member getting an equal share, on October, 1954 c directing the respondent and his subordi nates to cancel o.r withdraw the impugned orders and all steps taken for the recovery of the amounts so.
Jayantilal died in 1956.
issued and served under sections 142 and 143 of the Income tax Act, 1961.
the appellants companynsel that so many proceedings and orders companyld number be challenged in one writ petition and he was asked to make his submissions in the appeal companyfining the writ petition to one matter only.
He executed a general power of attorney on October 5, 1948 in favour of his third son Gulabchand to manage his Bapalals separate property.
Counsel chose to companyfine it to the attack on the attachment order of the Income tax Officer in respect of the money lying in the Savings Bank Account.
56,294.43 in the said account by his orders dated May 12, 1970.
Having heard Mr. B.R.L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate for the appellant at some length we found that the appellant was ill advised to file the writ petition and to.
156 of 1971.
The Income tax authorities took steps for realization of the income tax dues against the appellants family and got attached various properties.
On October 22, 1954 Bapalal relinquished his right, title and interest in the joint family properties on taking a sum of Rs.
The appellants case in the writ petition was that Bapalal was the karta of the Hindu Undivided family.
The Income tax Officer attached the entire amount of Rs.
75,000/ leaving the companypus and management of the joint family properties to his four sur viving sons and Rajnikant, son of late Ramanlal.
October 24, 1954.
InCometax assessment was made against the Hindu Undivided family for the year 1955 56.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
assessed d directing the respondent and hi.s subordi nates number to take any further steps for the recov ery of the tax so assessed e quashing all the penalty orders and such other orders passed in pursuance of the assessment proceedings aforesaid f quashing all the orders of attachment or in the nature attachment passed by the Income tax Authorities in these proceedings for the assessment year 1955 56 onwards, and g to pass such other and further orders as your Lordships deem just and expedient in the circurm stances of the case.
20,000/ , the appellant was granted a certificate as a matter of companyrse.
These five members also executed a memo of partition on October 24, 1954 disrupting the erstwhile Hindu Undivided family and partitioning the properties.
Thereupon, the appellant filed the writ petition challenging the various orders passed in the pro ceeding under section 25A of the Income tax Act, 1922 the assessments made for the years 1955 56 to 1965 66 and the attachment orders on various grounds.
It was pointed out to.
The appellant obtained a certified from the High Court for appeal to this Court under sub clause b of clause 1 of Article 133 of the Constitution of India as it stood before the 30th Constitution Amendment Act.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by his order dated September 30, 1965.
The appellant is one of the sons of Jayantilal.
In Civil Suit No.
pursue the matter upto this Court.
1177/70.
A second appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed on March 28, 1969.
Subsequently were added the other members of the family of the appellant as respondents to the writ petition.
R.L. Iyengar, S.K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia, for the appellant.
The joint family possessed many immovable properties and carried on business of various types such as money lending etc.
B.Ahuja, for respondent No.
In companyrse of the proceedings for assessment of the income tax for the assessment year 1955 56 against the Hindu Undi vided family of Bapalal Purshottamlal Modi, an application under Section 25A of the Income tax Act, 1922 was made claiming partition w.e.f.
Bapalal had five sons namely Vadilal, Ramanlal, Jayantilal, Gulabchand and Kantilal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. The appellants writ petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed in limine by a Bench of the High Court on October 19, 1970.
The Commissioner of Income tax, Gujarat II, respondent number 1 was the authority against whom several reliefs had been claimed in the writ petition.
Ramanlal died long ago in or about the year 1933.
