9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment on the receiver in place of executors. 2. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 3. Estoppel against the statute. 4. Effect of High Court's order on substitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of assessment on the receiver in place of executors: The primary issue was whether the assessment for the year 1944-45 on the applicant, Asit Kumar Ghosh, who was substituted as a receiver in place of the executors, was sustainable in law. The court noted that the assessment was initially started against the executors of the estate of Akshoy Kumar Ghosh. The executors filed the return, but the assessment proceedings were delayed. During the proceedings, Asit Kumar Ghosh, appointed as the receiver by the High Court, requested the Income-tax Officer to continue the proceedings in his name. The Tribunal upheld the assessment on the receiver, stating that he was merely a machinery in lieu of the executors. The court concluded that the substitution of the receiver did not validate the assessment, as the Income-tax Act did not authorize such substitution. 2. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act: The applicant suggested that the assessment should have been made under Section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. However, the court clarified that the assessment was made under Section 23(3) and not under Section 41(1). Therefore, the question of Section 41(1) did not arise from the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 3. Estoppel against the statute: The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the applicant, having requested the substitution, could not now repudiate his liability to assessment. The court rejected this contention, stating that estoppel could not override statutory provisions. Estoppel is a rule of evidence and not a cause of action. The court emphasized that there could be no estoppel against the statute, and the assessment could not be based on the ground that the applicant wanted to be assessed. 4. Effect of High Court's order on substitution: The court examined the effect of the High Court's order, which authorized the receiver to take charge of all proceedings pending against the estate. The court noted that the order only gave the receiver liberty to apply for substitution in legal proceedings but did not mandate substitution irrespective of the relevant law. The Income-tax Act did not provide for the substitution of a receiver in place of executors for assessment purposes. Therefore, the High Court's order did not validate the substitution or the subsequent assessment on the receiver. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessment on the applicant for the assessment year 1944-45 was not sustainable in law. The answer to the referred question was "No." The court also noted the unmeritorious conduct of the applicant and denied costs. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, with Lahiri, J. concurring.
|
