9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of notice under Section 34(1)(a) for assessment under the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The case involved a reference under Section 66(1) of the Act regarding the correctness of setting aside the assessment under Section 34(1)(a). The deceased appointed executors and trustees in his will for various religious and charitable purposes. The probate of the will was taken out in 1921, and the administration of the estate was considered complete by the relevant assessment year of 1947-48. Anath Krishna Laha, as an executor and trustee, filed a return for the assessment year 1949-50, claiming that the income from the estate should be taxed individually in the hands of the deities only. However, the assessment was made on Anath Krishna Laha as a trustee under Sections 23(3), 34(1)(a), and 41 of the Income Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the directions under the will had been carried out, and thus, the assessee was holding the properties as a trustee. The Tribunal considered the notice under Section 34(1)(a) to be invalid as it did not specify the particular character in which the assessee was being assessed. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning. Section 34(1)(a) empowers the Income Tax Officer to issue a notice if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Anath Krishna Laha had acted as both an executor and a trustee, and there was no legal impediment for the Officer to serve notices in both capacities. Referring to a previous case, the High Court emphasized that if there was any doubt regarding the capacity in which the assessee was being assessed, clarification could have been sought. The Court held that the notice was not invalid merely because the assessee was described as an executor and trustee. The Tribunal erred in suggesting that the Officer had to determine the status before issuing the notice, as this could prejudge the issue without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the High Court answered the reference question in the negative, ruling against the assessee, who was directed to pay the costs of the reference.
|
