B.L. Hansaria, J.- These petitions by the legal representatives of one late Israil Khan challenge the validity of the assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer relating to different assessment years. The occasion for approaching this Court was the issue of notice to the legal representatives by the Tax Recovery Officer, Dibrugarh to pay the dues. The contention in all these writ petitions is that as all the legal representatives of late Israil Khan, who are said to be 0 in number, were not served with notices under section 143 (2) of the Income tax Act, hereinafter the Act, the assessments were null and void and no payment could be demanded on the basis of such assessment orders. 2. In so far as the factual aspect of the case is concerned, it may be stated that late Israil Khan died on 24.9.71 and was governed by Sunni School of Mohemmadan Law. It is also an admitted position that in all the proceedings one wife and 3 sons of late Israil Khan were-made parties and were served notices under section 143(2) of the Act. The contention of the writ petitioners however is that as Israil Khan had left 10 heirs issuance of notice on four of them did not satisfy the requirement of law and the assessment made without issuing notice on all the legal representatives are not tenable in law. 3. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. It is however the contention of the department that notices were issued only on the wife and 3 sons of late Israil Khan inasmuch as in the course of a proceeding under the Gift Tax Act (the Gift Tax Officer was also the Income-tax Officer) an informatioa was furnished by the authorised representative Mr. Tibrcwal on 30.8.74 that late Israil Khan left the following legal representatives : 1) Bunnat Khatoon, wife of late Israil Khan. 2) Ayub Khan, son Late Israil, Khan. 3) Salim Khan, son of Late Israil Khan. 4) Yusuf Khar, son of late Israil Khan. It is because of this that the Income-tax Officer issued notices on the aforesaid 4 persons. It is therefore contended by Shri Choudhury for the Revenue that the Income-tax Officer had every reason to believe bonafide that Israil Khan had left the aforesaid 4 legal representatives only. 4) Yusuf Khar, son of late Israil Khan. It is because of this that the Income-tax Officer issued notices on the aforesaid 4 persons. It is therefore contended by Shri Choudhury for the Revenue that the Income-tax Officer had every reason to believe bonafide that Israil Khan had left the aforesaid 4 legal representatives only. Shri Saraf however brings to our notice Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the depart­ment in Civil Rule No.529/80 which shows that as per Israil Khan himself his family members consisted of his wife, 4 sons and 2 daughters. This information was given sometime in 1970. The learned counsel, therefore, states that even as per the records maintained by the department notices must have been issued on atleast 7 persons if not 10. As to this, the reply of Shri Choudhury is that out of the 4 sons, one had died sometime in 1972 and two - daughters were minors at the relevant time. In so far as the minor daughters are concerned, it is submitted by Shri Choudhury that they were duly represented by their mother. iq this connection our attention has been invited to the Gift tax return filed by Israil Khan for the assessment year 1968-69 in which three minor sons were said to have been represented by their mother and guardian Bunnat Khatoon. It is because of this, notices were issued only on the wife and 3 sons of Israil Khan. This being the position, we are of the view that when notices were issued on 4 legal repres­entatives only of the deceased it cannot be held that the Income-tax Officer had acted without diligence or had not applied his mind to this aspect of the case properly and duly. 4. In this connection, Shri Saraf refers to Jai Prakash Singh vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1978) 111 IT 507 (Gau) wherein out of 10 legal representatives only one had been notified by the concerned authorities because of which the assessment order was held to be bad. As to this case Shri Choudhury contends that the same is different on facts inasmuch as an information had been given to the concerned authority in the aforesaid case that Shri B.N. Singh who was the assessee in the case had died leaving behind him 10 legal representatives. This information had been given soon after his death. As to this case Shri Choudhury contends that the same is different on facts inasmuch as an information had been given to the concerned authority in the aforesaid case that Shri B.N. Singh who was the assessee in the case had died leaving behind him 10 legal representatives. This information had been given soon after his death. Despite this no enquiry was made and only one legal representatives, was given notice la the present case however we find that the Income-tax Officer had good reason to believe because of the information supplied by the authorised representative of the deceased assessee that he was succeeded by his wife and 3 sons who were duly notified about the proceeding. It may be that this information was given in connection with the assess­ment in the Gift Tax Act. But as at the relevant time the Gift Tax Officer was performing the duties of the Income-tax Officer also, he acted on the information made available to him qua Gift Tax Officer. We do think that in doing so the Income-tax Officer acted bonafide. 5. Our attention has also been invited by the learned counsel for the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax vs Rahim Bi (1977) 107 ITR 810 where on the death of the assessee notice was issued only to the mother as defacto guardian or minor children. This notice was not regarded as sufficient because under the Mohemmadan Law only the father or fathers' father could have been regarded as guardian. This decision has no application on the facts of the present case in as much as no notice was issued on the minors showing the mother as defacto or dejure guardian of the minors. Even if this would have been done we would have found no fault with the taxing authorities in view of the statement of Israil Khan himself referred earlier that his minors sons were being represented by their mother. 6. Our attention has been invite! by Shri Saraf to Chooarmal vs Commissioner of Income Tax, (1971) 80 ITR 360 also in which it was held by the Gujrat High Court that if the 110 make bona­fide and diligent enquiry leaving out of some of the heirs would not make the assessment null and void. Learned counsel states that in the present case there was no enquiry not to speak of the en­quiry being diligent and bonafide. Learned counsel states that in the present case there was no enquiry not to speak of the en­quiry being diligent and bonafide. As to this view we would like to say that as the Income-tax Officer had acted on the basis of the information given by the authorised representative of the deceased though in connection with the proceeding under the Gift Tax Act, the bonafide of the Income-tax Officer cannot be doubted. In the fact of the present case, after the aforesaid information was given it would not have thought necessary to hold any further enquiry by the Income-tax Officer. We are, therefore, satisfied that in the present case the Income-tax Officer did not commit any manifest error of law in issuing notice only on the 4 legal representatives of the assessee. 7. Question is whether on the basis of notice on some of the heirs tax can be realise from other representatives or not. In this connection Shri Choudhury has first drawn our attention to Kabir Mudeen vs. N. V. Mathukrishna, ILR 26 Madras 260 in which it was held that if the legal representatives brought on record suffi­ciently represent tie estate of the deceased, in the absence of any fraud or collusion, the decree passed in such suit will bind such estate We are thereafter referred to Daya Ram vs. Shyam Snndari, AIR 1965 SC 1049 wherein it was observed at page 1054 that it has been consensus opinion of all the High Courts of the country that where a plaintiff or an appellant after diligent and bonafide enquiry ascertains who the legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent are and brings them on record within the time limited, by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal ; that the impleaded legal representatives, sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and that a decision obtained with them on record will bind not merely those impleaded but the entire estate including those not brought on record. This decision was referred with approval in ITO vs. Maram Reddy, (1971) 79 1TR 1 (SO. This decision was referred with approval in ITO vs. Maram Reddy, (1971) 79 1TR 1 (SO. In this connection reference was also made to First Additional Income-tax Officer vs. Suseela, (1965) 57 1TR 168 In which it was held that if a person dies executing a will appointing more than one executor or dies leaving behind him more than one heir, the Income-tax Officer has to proceed to assess the total income of the deceased against all the executors or all the legal representatives, as the case may be. Though this is the legal requirement, for reasons already given there is no legal flaw in the present case in having issued notices on four legal representatives only of the deceased. 8. In view of all the above, we are satisfied that the assessment in the present case cannot be regarded to be nullity because notices were issued only on four legal representatives of late Israil Khan. We do not find any failure of justice in the present case on the above ground to merit invocation of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution to-set aside the assessment orders rendered after having issued notices on the 4 legal representatives of the assessee. We are therefore, not satisfied if case has been made out to set aside the impugned orders The petitions are therefore dismissed. S.K.Homchauhuri, J -1 agree