Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. -
(1.)THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Tax Recovery Officer, Vijayawada-2, Krishna District, made in S. R. No. 40/67 on 28th June, 1969.
(2.)THE facts essential for the purpose of appreciating the contention raised before us are that the petitioner and his father, Karri Venkatareddi, constituted a Hindu undivided family. THE said family was assessed to pay income-tax for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. As the dues were not paid, the recovery certificates were issued. For the year 1961-62 the joint family was assessed on June 29, 1962, to a reduced assessment of Rs. 1,479.41. THE recovery certificate was issued on March 13, 1963. For the year 1962-63, the assessment was made on March 14, 1967, and the amount under that assessment was Rs. 26,890. Likewise, for the year 1963-64, assessment was made on August 21, 1967, and the amount due under it was Rs. 5,549 and the certificates for the last two years were issued on September 30, 1967. With an addition of Rs. 5,449-59 towards interest due till February 13, 1969, the total amount due was Rs. 39,368.
In order to recover this amount on the basis of the said certificates, the Tax Recovery Officer attached several properties including a wet land of 3 acres and 70 cents situated at Pentapadu, i.e., R. S, Nos. 41/1 admeasuring 90 cents and R. S. No. 42/2 admeasuring 2 acres and 80 cents. We are not concerned with the attachment of other properties except these lands.
After the attachment of the said lands, the petitioner filed a claim petition on April 28, 1969. It was claimed that the properties cannot be attached for recovery of amounts due from Karri Venkatareddi as the properties were partitioned and the lands fell to his share under a registered deed dated September 2, 1962. In the claim petition he further averred that the assessment related to the tax dues of a Hindu undivided family of which the petitioner was a member, that the father of the petitioner for the accounting year 1963-64 showed his status as an individual and referred to a registered partition deed. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not issue any notices nor did he hold any enquiry. No finding in respect of partition was given. The assessment was completed in the status of Hindu undivided family. No appeal against that assessment order was filed.
(3.)THE Tax Recovery Officer by his impugned order found that the partition was not genuine and, therefore, rejected the claim petition. It is this order that is challenged in this writ petition.
The principal contention of Sri I. V, Rangachary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that when the father of the petitioner had claimed partition by filing a return for 1963-64, showing the status as individual and referring to the registered partition deed; the assessment order passed for that year is void and as no notice was given to the other members of the family, consequently the certificate issued on the basis of such a void assessment order and all the proceedings of attachment, etc., taken in pursuance of such recovery certificates are void and therefore the impugned order must be quashed.