Mr. Gokal Chand Mital, C. J.

( 1 ) IN April, 1963, concerned Income-taxofficer issued notice to Mr. Bashesharnath. , assessee, undersection 139 (2)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. On 20/10/1963 Basheshar Nath submitted his return of income inresponse to the said notice. While the proceedings were still pending, indecember 1965 Basheshar Nath died leaving behind his widow and threesons. The matter was being conducted by M/s. A. S. Bhatia and Co. , thechartered Accountants concerned. The Income-tax Officer gave anintimation to him about Basheshar Naths s case, in reply to which theincome-tax Officer was informed that the assessee had died/on 10thdecember, 1965 and the/family was in the mourning and some time should begranted. Despite information, the Income-tax Officercontinued the proceedings and issued notice under Section 143 (2) in the name of Basheshar Nath,which was served on Mr. Shinghari, Advocate. The assessment was completed on 22/03/1968 determining the total income at Rs. 3,99,8191 -.

( 2 ) SOME of the legal representatives of Basheshar Nath filed anappeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and challenged theassessment as being null and void, being against a dead man. The Appellateassistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that in spite of the death ofthe assessee, the proceedings could be continued against the legal representativesand, therefore, were not invalid or nullity but held that it was necessaryto issue notice to the legal representatives and accordingly, vide order dated 31/01/1970 set aside the assessment and directed the Income-taxofficer to make fresh assessment in accordance with law, after making thelegal representatives party to the proceedings from the stage they were whenbasheshar Nath, died.

( 3 ) THE legal representatives who had gone up in appeal before theappellate Assistant Commissioner filed further appeal before the Income. taxappellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A and the appeal was dismissed on 2 9/03/1972 upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

( 4 ) THE legal representatives sought reference of the law pointinvolved in this case for opinion of this Court and the matter was referred tothis Court and was registered as Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1974. Itappears that those legal representatives, who sought reference, did not pursuethe reference and ultimately by order dated. 5/02/1981. thereference was returned unanswered.

( 5 ) WHILE reference was being sought, one of the four legal representatives, namely. Vijay Sarin, filed this writ petition to challenge the orderof assessment and the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on identical grounds, namely, that the order of theincome-tax Officer was nullity and the proceedings could not be continuedagainst the legal representatives of Basheshar Nath from the stage theywere when he died. The writ petition is opposed by the Income-taxdepartment.

( 6 ) ON a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that in viewof the provisions of Section 159 (2), relating to liabilities in such cases of thelegal representatives. Section 251. relating to the powers of the Appellateassistant Commissioner, including the power to refer back to the assessingauthority for making a fresh assessment in accordance with law and thedecision of the Supreme Court in Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. Commissioner of income-tax, Madras, 79 ITR 505, there is no scope forinterference in the exercise of the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of thiscourt.

( 7 ) APART from the fact that some other legal representatives failed inscuttling the proceedings by issuing fresh notice to the legal representativesfrom the stage when Basheshar Nath, asscssee, died, upto the Tribunal andthen in not pursuing the reference made to this Court in view of Section159 (2) of the Act. the Income-tax Officer was justified in continuing theproceedings against the legal representatives of the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document