The Income-tax Officer is not required to issue notices to all the legal representatives of a deceased assessee if he has acted bonafide and has good reason to believe that the deceased assessee was succeeded by the legal representatives who were duly notified about the proceeding.

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. 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 die

Click Here to Read the rest of this document