B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court answering the following question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue:-"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that non-service of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against nine out of the ten legal representatives of the deceased Shri B. N. Singh did not invalidate the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, and that it was at best an irregularity for which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the assessments and it was not a case fit for cancellation of the assessments"
(2.) One B. N. Singh had extensive business interests. He did not file a return for the Assessment Years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. He died on April 16, 1967. He left behind ten legal representatives comprising three widows, four sons and three daughters. The eldest son, Jai Prakash Singh, filed the returns for the said three assessment years on March 17, 1970, November 12, 1970, and October 27, 197, respectively. The returns were signed by Jai Prakash Singh alone - not by other legal representatives. In these returns, Jai Prakash Singh disclosed the income received by late B. N. Singh from all his business interests and properties. (It may be emphasised that B. N. Singh died after the close of the accounting year relevant to Assessment Year 1967-68 - in fact, sixteen days after the commencement of the Assessment Year 1967-68). The returns filed by Jai Prakash Singh were scrutinised by the Income-tax Officer who also issued notices under Sections 142 (1) and 143 (2) to him to appear and produce documents, accounts and other material. He complied with the same. No objection was raised by Jai Prakash Singh before the Income-tax Officer in the said assessment proceedings that notice must be given to the other legal representatives of late B. N. Singh. Assessment orders were made mentioning the names of all the ten legal representatives against the cloumn "name of the Assessee". They were described as "legal representatives of late B. N. Singh". Assessment was made in the status of "individual". Appeals were filed by Shri Jai Prakash Singh contending for the first time therein that inasmuch as all the legal representatives of B. N. Singh, were not given notice of the assessment proceedings, the assessments made were illegal and void and must be so declared. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the contention. While taking note of the fact that "B. N. Singh's death and the names of his legal representatives were intimated to the Income-tax Officer shortly after his death", he held that completing the assessment without serving notices upon all the legal representatives was only an irregularity in completing the assessment. Accordingly, he set aside the assessment orders and remitted the matters to the Income-tax Officer for making fresh assessments after notice to all the legal representatives. Jai Prakash Singh filed further appeals before the Tribunal raising the very same contention but to no avail. It is then that the aforesaid question was referred for the opinion of the High Court.
(3.) The High Court referred to the definitions of "assessee" and "legal representatives" in Clauses (7) and (29) of Section 2 as well as to Section 159 of the Act and held that in the absence of service of notice on all the legal representatives, the assessment made upon them is a nullity and not a mere irregularity. It has accordingly set aside the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (affirmed by the Tribunal) remitting the matters to Income-tax Officer for making fresh assessments after notice to all the legal representatives.;