| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 29 1994 SLD 29 1994 PTD 324 (1993) 202 ITR 24 (1993) 67 TAX 179 |
Kerala High Court
Writ Appeal No. 221 of 1990, decision dated: 26-11-1990
V.S. MALIMATH, C.J. AND T.L. VISWANATHA IYER, J
P. Gopalakrishnan Nair for the Appellant N.R.K. Nair for the
Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 221 of 1990, decision dated: 26-11-1990
V.S. MALIMATH, C.J. AND T.L. VISWANATHA IYER, J
P. Gopalakrishnan Nair for the Appellant N.R.K. Nair for the
Respondents
N.S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN
VS
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another EMPLOYEES UNION, REGISTERED ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Vs THE REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, BAHAWALPUR REGION, BAHAWALPUR and others EMPLOYEES UNION, REGISTERED ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Vs THE
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section:
Income-tax----Recovery of tax---Deposit of title deeds as security for payment of tax---No proof that deposit made as security for payment of arrears of tax of assessees father---Payment of dues by assessee---Assessee a minor and not competent to execute: mortgage at relevant time---Title deeds to be returned to assessee--¬Constitution of India, Art. 226. The appellant demanded the return of the sale-deed in respect of a particular piece of land on the ground that it had been only deposited as security in respect of the amounts due to the Income Tax Department and that there was no need for retention of the said security, there being no subsisting dues of the appellant. The request was turned down on the ground that the deposit of title deeds was made as a security towards the dues of the appellants father who continued to have arrears payable to the Revenue. This was accepted by a single Judge who dismissed the appellants writ petition. On further appeal: Held that the Revenue had not been able to produce any specific material to prove that the document of title deposited by the appellant was in respect of tax dues of the appellants father or that they had been treated as such by the Revenue. The amount due from the appellant was only Rs.1,913 and the fact that the property was worth more than Rs.40,000 was not by itself a circumstance to indicate that the same must have been filed as security towards the dues of the appellant. The appellant was a minor but the security had not been furnished by the appellants father in his capacity as guardian. As the appellant was a minor at the relevant point of time, he did not have the contracting capacity to bring about an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The title deeds had to be returned to the appellant. JUDGMENT V.S. MALIMATH, C.J: --The appellant demanded return of sale-deed No.1250 of 1967, dated April 5, 1967, in respect of Sy. No.946 of Changazhassery village measuring 17 cents of land on the ground that it was only deposited as security in respect of the amounts due to the Income Tax Department and that there is no need for retention of the said security, there being no subsisting dues of the…
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