9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of assessments made by the Incometax Officer without compliance with Section 24-B(3) of the Incometax Act. 2. Commencement of proceedings for the recovery of arrears under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act after the expiration of the prescribed time. 3. Power of the Collector to sell property under the Revenue Recovery Act in specific plots. Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the validity of the assessments made by the Incometax Officer without complying with Section 24-B(3) of the Incometax Act. The section mandates that if a person dies after furnishing a return, the Incometax Officer may assess the total income after requiring the legal representative to provide necessary evidence. The petitioners argued that the Officer did not accept the return and made the assessment without notifying the legal representative. However, the counter affidavit stated that the assessment was practically completed, and notice was served at the business place to the eldest son, who received it. The court noted that without proof of a Will bequeathing properties differently, the notice served was valid on the legal representatives. The court refrained from a final determination, indicating the matter should be addressed in an appeal. 2. The second issue concerns the commencement of proceedings for arrears recovery under Section 46(7) of the Incometax Act. The section stipulates that proceedings for recovery must start within a year of the demand. The debate centered on when the proceedings commence - either when the Officer forwards a certificate to the Collector or when the Collector initiates recovery. The court interpreted "proceedings for the recovery" to include the entire process of realizing the amount, starting with the Officer's certificate issuance. Consequently, as the certificates were forwarded within the prescribed time, the proceedings were deemed initiated timely. 3. The final issue questions the Collector's authority to sell property under the Revenue Recovery Act in specific plots. The court found no merit in this argument, stating that the Collector is empowered to recover arrears under the Act. If the property is being sold in inconvenient plots, the petitioners were advised to raise objections before the Collector. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the Collector's actions were within legal bounds and ordered costs to be paid. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the validity of assessments, the timing of arrears recovery proceedings, and the Collector's power to sell property under the Revenue Recovery Act. The court provided detailed analysis on each issue, clarifying legal provisions and interpretations to arrive at a comprehensive decision.
|
