Hindu undivided family assessment through receivers upheld where no partition order existed and pre-Constitution writ relief was limited.

Pre-Constitution assessment orders could be challenged in writ only if they were void ab initio or non est; mere illegality or defect was insufficient to stop enforcement. Where no order under section 25A had been made, the Hindu family was treated as continuing as a Hindu undivided family for tax purposes, and receivers managing its property were assessable under section 41 as representing that family. Recovery from family members was not invalid merely because the income had been received by receivers, the limitation plea was not entertained on a fresh factual basis, and the penalty provisions were held applicable with section 9(3) inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assessment orders passed before the commencement of the Constitution could be challenged in writ proceedings as void ab initio or non est; (ii) whether the receivers who managed the family properties were assessable under section 41 as representing the Hindu undivided family, and whether the family could be treated as divided in the absence of an order under section 25A; (iii) whether recovery from the family members, the plea based on limitation under section 46(7), the levy of penalty, and reliance on section 9(3) rendered the recovery or penalty proceedings invalid.

Issue (i): Whether assessment orders passed before the commencement of the Constitution could be challenged in writ proceedings as void ab initio or non est.

Analysis: Relief under article 226 could reach a pre-Constitution order only if the order was void ab initio or non est. If the order was merely illegal or defective, its enforcement could not be restrained by writ where the order itself was made before the Constitution came into force. The pre-Constitution assessment orders were not shown to be without jurisdiction in that sense.

Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-Constitution assessment orders failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the receivers who managed the family properties were assessable under section 41 as representing the Hindu undivided family, and whether the family could be treated as divided in the absence of an order under section 25A.

Analysis: The receivers were found to be managing the family estate as such, even if separate accounts were kept for the branches. Until an order under section 25A(1) was recorded, section 25A(3) deemed the Hindu family to continue as a Hindu undivided family for income-tax purposes. On that footing, the receiver was receiving income on behalf of the Hindu undivided family, and assessment under section 41 was legally sustainable. Any error in including income from a particular branch was only an illegality in computation and did not render the entire assessment non est.

Conclusion: The assessment of the receivers under section 41 was valid and was in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether recovery from the family members, the plea based on limitation under section 46(7), the levy of penalty, and reliance on section 9(3) rendered the recovery or penalty proceedings invalid.

Analysis: The contention that recovery could proceed only against the receivers was rejected because the person on whose behalf the income was received remained liable. The limitation plea under section 46(7) was not entertained as it was a fresh factual point not raised below. Penalty was upheld because section 41(1) attracted the other provisions of the Act, including section 28(1)(a). Section 9(3) was held inapplicable to this situation.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings and penalty levy were upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the Revenue's position was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Hindu family is statutorily deemed to continue as an undivided family in the absence of an order under section 25A(1), a receiver managing its property is assessable under section 41 as representing that family, and the assessment remains valid unless shown to be void ab initio; the same statutory scheme also permits penalty under the Act's general penalty provisions.

---