Bharucha, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave. The order that is impugned was passed by the High Court at Calcutta in an income-tax reference. The question that the High Court was called upon to answer were:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid assessment on an H. U. F. for the assessment year 1955-56 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for 1958-59 to 1962-63 in the status of H. U. F are valid -
(2.) The reference related to Assessment Years 1958-59 to 1962-63, the relevant previous years whereof were B. S. years 1364 to 1368. The assessee was Rash Behari Das Burma, who was governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this decision to go into his family history, which is referred to both in the Statement of Case placed before the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court. What we now set out is what is relevant and it is taken from the Statement of Case. For the Assessment Year 1955-56 the assessee submitted a return dated 14th November, 1957, describing himself as the karta of his H. U. F. An assessment was said to have been made on the H. U. F. The assessment order on the record of the Revenue bears no signature. There is no signed copy of the assessment form. There is a demand notice dated 10th April, 1958 with some initial or signature on it. According to the assessee, neither the statutory notice nor the demand notice nor the assessment order had been received. On the record there is an acknowledgment slip bearing the date 25th April, 1958 signed by one Phool Singh. According to the assessee, there was no such person who had any authority to receive any notice on his behalf. There was no material to show that the demand raised in the demand notice had been paid by the assessee.
(3.) The assessee filed a partition suit (bearing No. 665 of 1955 in the Calcutta High Court). A settlement was arrived at. The properties were to be divided by metes and bounds, but that remained to be done when the Statement of Case was drawn by the Tribunal.;