K ISWARA WARIYAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. ISWARA WARIYAR
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) "(1) Whether the imposition of the penalty on the appellant is valid and sustainable ? (2) Having forwarded the certificate under S. 41 of the Act in respect of the arrears in question, whether it was within the competency and jurisdiction of the Agrl. ITO to impose the penalty in question ?
(2.) The applicant is the receiver appointed in a partition suit. The parties to this suit are the heirs of Mannarghat Moopil Nayar. Mannarghat Moopil Nayar died on January 3, 1960. The year of
assessment is 1959-60. It is said that the Mannarghat Moopil Nayar has filed no returns though
notices were issued to him under ss. 17(2) and 35 of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950. An assessment was,
therefore, made for the year on the legal heirs of Mannarghat Moopil Nayar on February 26, 1962.
For the realisation of the tax and super-tax amounting to Rs. 7,246.69 and surcharge thereon of
Rs. 362.33 demand notices were also issued to the heirs. After Shri K. K. Unni Nayar was
appointed as a receiver in the suit mentioned earlier of the sthanam properties, several
communications were addressed to him for the payment of the tax, the super-tax and surcharge. It
is unnecessary to refer to the various communications. Attempts were also made for recovery of
the tax, etc., by resort to revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to S. 41(3) of the Agrl. IT Act.
Finally, an order imposing penalty, which is appendix B to the statement of the case dated
November 23, 1963, was passed against the receiver, the said K. K. Unni Nayar. The first question
that we have read poses the query as to whether the imposition of the penalty on the receiver is
valid and sustainable.
(3.) The imposition is sought to be supported on the basis of the definition of the term "assessee" in s. 2(d) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, which reads thus :
"2. (d) 'assessee' means a person by whom agricultural income-tax is payable."
4. It must be repeated here that no assessment has been made on the receiver as envisaged by s. 8 of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, or on the basis of S. 24 of the Act treating the receiver as a "legal representative" of the deceased, Mannarghat Moopil Nayar. And it is not seriously urged before us
that the receiver appointed in the circum- stances mentioned above will be the legal representative
of Moopil Nayar. Sec. 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, runs thus :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1), when a sthanamdar dies after the commencement of this Act, the sthanam property held by him or her shall devolve upon the members of the family to which the sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the sthanamdar as if the sthanam property had been divided per capital immediately before the death of the sthanamdar among himself or herself and all the members of his or her family then living, and the shares falling to the members of his or her family and the heirs of the sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate property." ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.