Judgment

RAY, J.:- These appeals are by certificate against the judgment dated 16 August, 1965 of the High Court of Madras on a reference under S. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 19222 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Seven questions were referred to the High Court. The reference involved first the construction of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act, and, secondly, the applicability of section 24B (3) of the Act to the assessments made on the executor to the estate of late Rangalal Jajodia.

3. In order to appreciate the scope of the reference, it is necessary to refer to the facts which Rave rise to the questions. Rangalal Jajodia (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) filed income-tax returns for the years 1942-43 and 1943-44 as well as his excess profits tax returns for the corresponding chargeable accounting periods ending 31 December, 1941 and 31 December, 1942 before the Income-tax Officer, Excess Profits Tax Officer, Madras, Special South Circle. On receipt of the returns the officer issued the requisite statutory notices to the assessee for production of accounts and also other evidence in support of the returns under Sections 22 (4) and 23 (2) of the Act and under the corresponding provisions of section 30 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. Rangalal Jajodia complied with the aforesaid notice. But before the assessments to the income-tax and excess profits tax could be made Rangalal Jajodia died on 11 January, 1946.

4. Rangalal Jajodia was survived by Shankar Lal Jajodia son by a predeceased wife, Aruna Devi, the second wife and children by the second wife. Rangalal Jajodia had made a will on 16 April, 1945 whereby Aruna Devi and one Ram Kumar Bhuwalka were executrix and executor respectively. Shankarlal Jajodia was disinherited under the will. Shankarlal Jajodia however performed the funeral obsequies for the deceased. The Revenue on the basis of that information issued notice to Shankar Lal Jajodia asking him to show cause why the assessment of the deceased should not be made on him as the legal representative. Shankarlal Jajodia objected to the course stating that he was not the legal representative end that his stepmother Aruna Devi and Ram Kumar Bhuwalka as the executrix and executor respectively were the proper persons on whom proceedings were to be taken. The Revenue called for a copy of the will which however was not produced The assessment was completed on 28 February. 1947 on the materials describing the assessee as "the estate of late Shri Rangalal Jajodia by legal heirs and representatives, Shri Shankarlal Jajodia, son of Rangalal Jajodia. Shrimati Aruna Devi, wife of Rangalal Jajodia and her children".

5. The assessment orders were served on Shankarlal Jajodia who appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that he was not the legal representative. At the hearing of the appeals on 30 April, 1952 Shankarlal Jajodia produced a copy of the will. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment and directed the Revenue Officer to make a fresh assessment on the executors in accordance with section 24B of the Act. Pursuant to the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the Revenue Officer informed the executors and Ram Kumar Bhuwalka of his proposal to make assessment on them as the legal representatives of Rangalal Jajodia. Ram Kumar Bhuwalka who had refused to act as an executor intimated the fact to the Revenue Officer. Aruna Devi the executrix accepted the notice but requested the Revenue Officer to furnish her with copies of the returns notes of examination and correspondence between the deceased and the Revenue to enable her to make representations. The Revenue Officer however took the view that under section 24B of the Act it was not necessary to go through all the formalities once again and that the assessments were required to be done only for the purpose of inviting objections, if any, to the locus stand) of Aruna Devi as t