Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 228 1966 SLD 228 (1966) 61 ITR 57
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT No. 1062 OF 1965, OCTOBER 7, 1965
R.S. PATHAK, J
A.K. Kirty and J. Sarup for the Petitioner. R.L. Gulati for the
Respondent

Prem Narain Agarwal

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 160, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Representative assessee - General - Assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 - Whether representative assessee could be only in respect of income which is liable to be assessed in his hand and such income can only be that which is earned at that time when he occupies that status - Held, yes - By an order Court appointed a receiver in respect of properties in question - On his death, petitioners, were appointed receivers by order of Court - ITO issued notices under section 148 seeking to bring to tax income that had escaped assessment for assessment years in question - Whether receiver is merely an officer of Court and property over which he is appointed does not vest in him - Held, yes - Whether, on facts, petitioners were not representative assessees and, therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 against them were without jurisdiction - Held, yes FACTS The mill J owned by one family, gave way to co-ownership. In 1949, one S filed a suit for money in the court of Civil Judge, against the co-owners. In that suit, the court appointed two receivers over the mill for the purpose of protecting and preserving them. To their powers was subsequently added the power of realising rent and income accruing from the property. The joint receivers were replaced by a single receiver and upon his death by an order dated 1-5-1963, the Court appointed the petitioners as joint receivers. The respondent, ITO, served on the petitioners three separate notices under section 148 of 1961, in respect of three assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The notices which were addressed to Mill J. On the same date, the respondent made a provisional assessment under section 141 in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 and served it upon the petitioners calling for the payment of tax. Upon default by the petitioners in making the payment, the respondent initiated penalty proceedings. The petitioners challenged the validity of the provisional assessment by a petition and the Single Judge, allowed the petition and quashed the provisional assessment with its notice of demand. The petitioners were then…
🔒
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