9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of assessment orders due to incomplete notice to legal representatives under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of GAUHATI involved a challenge to the validity of assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer concerning different assessment years. The legal representatives of the deceased individual, Israil Khan, contested the assessment orders on the grounds that not all 10 legal representatives were served with notices under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, rendering the assessments null and void. It was undisputed that Israil Khan passed away on September 24, 1971, and was governed by the Sunni School of Mohammadan law. Despite this, only his wife and three sons were served notices, leading to the contention that all legal representatives were not properly notified as required by law. The Department argued that notices were issued based on information provided by an authorized representative, indicating only four legal representatives of Israil Khan. The Department maintained that the Income-tax Officer acted in good faith and diligently based on the information available. The court considered previous cases, such as Jai Prakash Singh v. CIT and CIT v. Rahima Bi, to distinguish the present case, emphasizing the importance of diligent enquiry and representation of legal heirs. The court also referred to Chooharmal Wadhuram v. CIT, highlighting that a bona fide and diligent enquiry by the Income-tax Officer is crucial. The court further analyzed the legal implications of notice to some legal representatives and its impact on tax realization from other representatives. Citing legal precedents like Kadir Mohideen Marakkayar v. N. V. Muthukrishna Iyyar and Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, the court emphasized the significance of bringing all legal representatives on record to bind the entire estate of the deceased. Despite the legal requirements, the court found no flaw in the present case's assessment as notices were issued to four legal representatives, concluding that the assessment was not null and void. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that no failure of justice occurred to warrant setting aside the assessment orders based on incomplete notice to legal representatives.
|
