Dwivedi, J. - (1.) THE respondent, Ram Prasad Harish Chandra, was assessed to tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1944-45 on an income of Rs. 73,783. Subsequently, two other persons, Dr. B. N. Sarin and Messrs. Mukand Ram Radha Charan, were assessed to income-tax on Rs. 62,442 out of the income of Rs. 73,783 for which the respondent had already been assessed.
(2.) THE respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer. THE appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THEn the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal partly modified the order of the Income-tax Officer. When the department was trying to realise the arrears of tax by sale of the respondent's house in 1957, the respondent filed a writ petition in this court on September 26, 1957. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent made an application for review of the judgment dismissing the petition. The review petition was allowed. The learned single judge recalled his judgment dismissing the petition. He went further. He allowed the writ petition and directed the Income-tax Officer not to recover any tax in respect of Rs. 62,442 from the respondent. This appeal is preferred by the Income-tax Officer from this judgment of the learned single judge. This appeal emphasises the importance of form and procedure in the adjudication of cases in courts. It appears to us that the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition in entire disregard of orderly procedure governing court's proceedings.
(3.) IN the writ petition there are two precise prayers. Firstly, it is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus "be issued to the opposite parties directing them not to sell the attached house" for the recovery of the income-tax for the year 1944-45. Secondly, it is prayed that an interim order "be issued staying the sale of the house during the pendency of the petition". Then there is the ombinus prayer that "any other suitable order or direction as in the circumstances of the case is proper be passed". There is thus no prayer in the petition for quashing the assessment orders of the income-tax authorities. Again, there is no ground in the writ petition challenging the assessment order for the year 1944-45. The only ground is that the income-tax department has no power to realise the tax with respect to the amount of Rs. 62,442 from the respondent as the tax had already been realised from the said Dr. B. N. Sarin and Messrs. Mukand Ram Radha Charan. So the respondent was assailing in his writ petition the recovery of the income-tax and not the assessment of income-tax on the sum of Rs. 62,442. Again, the order of the Income-tax Officer was passed on August 28, 1947. It does not appear as to when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal modified the assessment order by its order dated April 23, 1951. The writ petition was filed, as already stated, on September 26, 1957. As there is no prayer for quashing the assessment order, there is no explanation for delay in filing the writ petition against the assessment order. It appears to us that in the course of arguments the learned single judge went into the question of the validity of the assessment orders. The attention of the learned judge was not invited to the shocking delay. There was a delay of more than six years. The writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.;