RAJAGOPALAN, J.

Ebenezer, the father of the petitioner Alfred, was an income-tax assessee. Ebenezer had income from the money-lending and abkari businesses that he carried on in addition to income from immoveable properties. He adopted the official financial year ending with 31st March, as his year of account. The assessment of his income for the assessment year 1944-45 was completed during his lifetime.

Ebenezer died intestate on 22nd November, 1945. His heirs and legal representatives were his son and eight daughters, four of whom were minors. Six of the daughters filed O.S. No. 121 of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, for the administration of the estate of the deceased Ebenezer, and for partition of the properties between his nine co-heirs. On 27th October, 1949, the Sub-Court appointed Mr. Lakshman, an advocate, as the receiver of the properties of Ebenezer. The receiver appears to have taken charge of most of the immoveable properties and to have realised the income therefrom till he was discharged on 15th January, 1953. He filed his accounts into Court on 4th November, 1950, 4th June, 1951, and 2nd February, 1952, and 4th November, 1952. On 29th September, 1950, there was a preliminary decree for partition. Three of the minor daughters had been represented in the litigation by one Chelladorai as their guardian ad-litem. On 25th March, 1953, one T.S. Tatachari was appointed the guardian of their properties under the Guardians and Wards Act. On 30th September, 1953, a Commissioner was ordered to be appointed to divide the properties in accordance with the directions given in the preliminary decree.

As we noted above, the assessment for the assessment year 1944-45, for the corresponding year of account ending with 31st March, 1944, was completed during the lifetime of Ebenezer. The assessment for the year 1945-46 was made after the death of Ebenezer but on the return filed by Ebenezer during his lifetime. For the assessment year 1946-47 the return was filed by the petitioner Alfred. In the course of these assessment proceedings, he filed and inventory of all the properties left by the deceased Ebenezer. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that return as correct and he ordered the addition of a sum of Rs. 1, 30, 000, which in his view represented the Income that had been concealed. Alfred appealed, and eventually on 14th November, 1953, the Tribunal reduced the amount to Rs. 45, 000, which alone in its opinion could be viewed as income that had accrued to Ebenezer in the relevant year of account ending with 31st March, 1946.During the pendency of these proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the petitioner under section 34 of the Income-tax Act to reopen the assessments for the years 1944-45 and 1945-46. Those notices were served on the petitioner, Alfred, on 30th June, 1953. That that was the correct date of service was accepted by the petitioner in his supplemental affidavit though earlier he had pleaded that it was on 6th March, 1953, that the notices had been served.

Sometime after the disposal of the appeal on 14th November, 1953, in relation to the assessment for 1946-47, the Income-tax Officer called upon the petitioner to produce the accounts on 26th March, 1954. The Income-tax Officer overruled the contention of the petitioner reiterated at that stage that he was not the only legal representative of the deceased Ebenezer and the further plea that the proceedings under section 34 were barred by limitation, and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for 1944-45 under section 34 by his order dated 26th March, 1954. At one stage there was a fair amount of controversy on the question whether the assessment order was passed on 31st March, 1954, as contended by the petitioner, or on 26th March, 1954, which was the plea of the Department. We were satisfied from the records that the contention of the Department was correct, and that the order of assessme