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

1966 Supreme(Cal) 30

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. N. Banerjee
HANSA KUMARI DEB BARMAN - Appellant
Versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY DIST. II, I WARD - Respondent
Matter 159  Of  1965
Decided On : FEBRUARY 7, 1966

Notices of rectification and dismissal of appeals ex parte are invalid if not served on all the heirs of the deceased assessee.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Rectification of mistake - Notice of intended rectification - Reasonable opportunity of being heard - Dismissal of appeals ex parte - Service of notice on all heirs of deceased appellant - Demand - Limitation for recovery - Modes of recovery.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, Srimati Padmavati Thakur, died during the pendency of appeals against income tax assessments for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62. The Income Tax Department issued notices of rectification for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61, enhancing the assessments. The appeals were dismissed ex parte. The petitioner, one of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, challenged the notices of demand issued on the basis of the rectified assessments and the dismissal of the appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the notices of rectification were invalid as they were not served on all the heirs of the deceased assessee and did not give them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court also held that the dismissal of the appeals ex parte was invalid as notice of hearing was not served on all the heirs. However, the court held that the demands were not barred by limitation as other modes of recovery, besides those prescribed by Section 46 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, may be available to the respondents.

Issues: 1. Whether the notices of rectification were valid? 2. Whether the dismissal of the appeals ex parte was valid? 3. Whether the demands were barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notices of rectification were invalid as they were not served on all the heirs of the deceased assessee and did not give them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as required by the first proviso to Section 85(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. 2. The court held that the dismissal of the appeals ex parte was invalid as notice of hearing was not served on all the heirs, as required by Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. 3. The court held that the demands were not barred by limitation as other modes of recovery, besides those prescribed by Section 46 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, may be available to the respondents.

Final Decision: The court quashed the demands to the extent they exceeded the limits indicated in the judgment and restrained the respondents from taking steps for recovery of such demands in the modes prescribed by Section 46 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The court, however, allowed the respondents to try to recover such demands by other means.

B. N. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE unending competition in ingenuity between the tax-gatherer and the taxpayer renders the application of the income-tax Law increasingly complicated. One such corn-plication requires to be resolved in this rule.

( 2 ) ONE Srimati Padmavati Thakur was an assesses, having some income assessable to tax. For the years 1957-58 to 1961-62, the said Srimati Thakur was assessed to income-tax under Section 23 (4) of the Income-tax Act 1922, in the following manner :--According to the petitioner two of the notices of demand were issued on August 28, 1961, and the remaining three on January 12, 1962. Srimati Thakur appears to have filed five appeals against the five assessments referred to above, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, 'b' Range, Calcutta. Before, however, the appeals were heard, Srimati Thakur died, on April 17, 1962, leaving her surviving as her heirs and legal representatives-On coming to know the death of the assessee appellant, the Income-tax Department wanted to ascertain from B. T. Thakur (the husband of the deceased assessee and the father of the petitioner) the names of the heirs of the deceased, by a letter dated August 28, 1962. B. T. Thakur replied to that letter, on September 20, 1962, and disclosed the names and addresses of all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased assessee.

( 3 ) WHILE the appeals were still pending, the petitioner alleges, certain notices under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act 1961 were received by B. T. Thakur above named, on May 1, 1963, wherein it was inter alia, stated that the respective assessments for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 required to be rectified on account of mistakes apparent on the face of the records and it was proposed to enhance the assessments respectively by sums of Rs. 83. 43 paise and Rs. 83. 39 paise. The said notices were addressed to "mr. B. T. Thakur and others, legal heirs of late Padmavati Thakur". The individual names of the legal representatives, the petitioner says were not mentioned in the notices. By the said notices, the persons notified were called upon to appear before the Income-tax Officer. 'e' Ward, Companies District II, on April 22, 1963. so as to be heard in person or to send beforehand written objections against the proposed rectification. Since the date fixed for hearing was already over, when the notices were received on May 1, 1963, nothing could be done and this fact was brought to the notice of the Income-tax Officer by B. T. Thakur. in his letter dated May 7, 1963. with a request to him not to take action in the matte'.

( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the notices of rectification related to the years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the petitioner alleges, the assessments for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62 were all taken up for rectification and as a matter of fact assessments for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 were reduced by way of rectification, the assessment for the year 1. 961-62 was left untouched and the assessments for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 were increased. From copies of the rectification orders, said to have been received by the petitions on November 25, 1963, it appeared that three of the orders were made on June 24, 1963 and one order was undated in the copy. The orders were all addressed to late Padmavati Thakur through legal heirs. The petitioner says that she forgot all about the orders and did not take steps against the said orders of rectification.

( 5 ) IN the mean time, on September 6, 1963, B. T. Thakur above named received a notice dated August 30, 1963, under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act 1922, addressed to "mr. B. T. Thakur and others, legal heirs of the estate of Mrs. Padmavati Thakur", informing him that the date of hearing of the appeals, preferred by the original assessee (Srimati Padmavati Thakur), was fixed for September 18, 1963 and calling upon him to take steps. On receipt of the notice, B. T. Thakur wrote to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on September 13, 1963. aski











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top