1957 (3) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the certificate issued under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 46(2) to legal representatives of a deceased assessee.
3. Jurisdiction of the Collector and Deputy Tahsildar based on the certificate issued under Section 46(2).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Certificate Issued Under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act:
The core issue was whether the sum demanded from the petitioner, based on the certificate issued under Section 46(2), constituted "arrears due from the assessee" and whether the petitioner was such an assessee within the meaning of Section 46(2). The court held that if the petitioner was not an assessee within the meaning of Section 46(2), the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the Collector would lack jurisdiction to recover the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act.

2. Applicability of Section 46(2) to Legal Representatives of a Deceased Assessee:
The court referred to the precedent set in Alfred v. Additional Income-tax Officer, where it was established that the legal representative of a deceased person is not an assessee but merely a person liable to pay the assessed tax. The legal fiction created by Section 24B(2) of the Act, which deems the legal representative to be the assessee for assessment purposes, does not extend to the collection of the assessed tax. The court reiterated that the liability of a legal representative is limited to the possession of the deceased's assets. Therefore, the petitioner, being a legal representative, could not be considered an assessee for the purposes of Section 46(2).

3. Jurisdiction of the Collector and Deputy Tahsildar Based on the Certificate Issued Under Section 46(2):
Since the petitioner was not an assessee within the meaning of Section 46(2), the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Collector and the Deputy Tahsildar, which depended on the validity of the certificate, was also invalid. The court concluded that the notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar on July 17, 1956, was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court determined that the petitioner was not an "assessee" within the meaning of Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate, and the subsequent actions by the Collector and Deputy Tahsildar were also without jurisdiction. The court granted a writ of certiorari to set aside the certificate issued under Section 46(2) and the notice dated July 17, 1956. There was no order as to costs.