SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 346

J.L.KAPUR, M.HIDAYATULLAH, S.R.DASS
Additional Income Tax Officer, Circle I, Salem – Appellant
Versus
E. Alfred – Respondent


Advocates:
K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, P.D.MENON, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : Whether the legal representative of a deceased person, who is assessed in respect of the total income of the latter person, as if he were the assessee, can be ordered to pay a penalty under S. 46 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is the short question that arises in this appeal.

2. One Ebenezer died intestate on November 22, 1945, during his year of account which ended on March 31, 1946. He left behind him the respondent, E. Alfred, his son, and eight daughters. For the assessment year, 1946-47, the respondent was assessed under S. 248(2) of the Income-tax Act, after a notice was issued to him under S, 22(2), ibid. The assessment was completed on March 26, 1951, and a notice of demand was issued under S. 29 of the Act. The respondent appealed against the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but during the pendency of the appeal, a penalty of Rs. 250 was imposed upon him under S. 46(1) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer, as he had defaulted in payment of tax on the due date. After the appeal was disposed of with very minor modifications, a notice of demand was again issued to him to pay the tax on or before December 15, 1951. On his















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top