Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 701 1973 SLD 701 (1973) 92 ITR 377
Delhi High Court
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 85 OF 1967, AUGUST 29, 1972
S.N. SHANKAR, J.
R.K. Makhija for the Petitioner. B.N. Kirpal for the
Respondent

Sunita Sabharwal

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 - Return of income - By whom to be signed - Whether mother of minor Hindu in presence of father was not competent to sign declaration under section 24 of 1965 Act on behalf of minor as she was not natural guardian in view of section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and as such declaration signed by mother of minor was invalid - Held, yes FACTS Under voluntary disclosure scheme of Finance No. 2) Act, 1965, the petitioner, a minor filed a declaration disclosing certain income. The declaration was filed by the mother of the minor in the name of the minor but under her own signatures. The declaration was returned as invalid on ground that it was not signed by the natural guardian of the minor who alone was competent to sign on the minor's behalf. Thereupon, the father of the minor filed representation before Commissioner stating that he had authorised his wife i.e. mother of the minor, to file the declaration. The Commissioner rejected the said representation. On writ petition HELD Section 6 read with section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, provides that in the case of a Hindu minor, the father would be the person competent to action on behalf of the minor in respect of his property wherever it was necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate. The filing of the declaration in the instant case was an act reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor and for the protection and benefit of the minor's estate. The father, therefore, was the person competent in law to file the declaration and to sign it on behalf of the minor. In the presence of the father, the mother could not do the same. She came only after the father, i.e., if the father was no more in existence or capable to act. Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act also provides that, after the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of or deal with the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being de facto guardian of the minor.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492