1978 (2) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership of Rs. 93,611.69.
2. Plaintiff's absolute ownership of the sum.
3. Personal liability of Keshab Prasad Goenka.
4. Wrongfulness of the attachment.
5. Suit barred by Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 1922.
6. Discharge of defendant No. 3's obligation.
7. Relief entitled to the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of Rs. 93,611.69:
The court examined whether the sum belonged to Gouri Shankar Goenka. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 argued that the money belonged to Gouri Shankar Goenka and was inherited by Keshab Prasad Goenka. However, the plaintiff provided evidence, including bank statements and witness testimony, indicating that the money was deposited in the account of Keshab Prasad Goenka and did not originate from Gouri Shankar Goenka. The court concluded that the defendants failed to prove that the money belonged to Gouri Shankar Goenka, answering this issue in the negative.

2. Plaintiff's Absolute Ownership of the Sum:
The plaintiff claimed that she became the absolute owner of the sum after the death of her husband, Keshab Prasad Goenka, and the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court found that the money belonged to Keshab Prasad Goenka and, upon his death, passed to the plaintiff. The court answered this issue in the positive.

3. Personal Liability of Keshab Prasad Goenka:
The court examined whether Keshab Prasad Goenka was personally liable to pay the sum as the legal heir and representative of Gouri Shankar Goenka. The court found that there was no evidence that Keshab Prasad Goenka inherited any property from Gouri Shankar Goenka that would make him liable for the dues. The court answered this issue in the negative.

4. Wrongfulness of the Attachment:
The plaintiff argued that the attachment of the sum was wrongful as it did not belong to Gouri Shankar Goenka. The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the money belonged to Keshab Prasad Goenka and not to Gouri Shankar Goenka. The court answered this issue in the positive.

5. Suit Barred by Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 1922:
The defendants argued that the suit was barred by Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 1922, which prohibits suits to set aside or modify any assessment made under the Act. The court found that the plaintiff was not an assessee and was not seeking to set aside or modify an assessment but was asserting her right to the property. The court answered this issue in the negative.

6. Discharge of Defendant No. 3's Obligation:
The court examined whether the defendant No. 3 (the bank) was discharged from any obligation to pay the money after paying it to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to a notice under Section 46(5A) of the I.T. Act. The court found that the bank acted bona fide and complied with the notice, thus discharging its obligation. The court answered this issue in the positive.

7. Relief Entitled to the Plaintiff:
The court deferred passing a decree in favor of the plaintiff until she obtained a letter of administration in respect of the estate of Keshab Prasad Goenka. The court did not pass a decree at present but allowed the plaintiff to file the letter of administration in court.

Conclusion:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff on most issues, determining that the money belonged to Keshab Prasad Goenka and subsequently to the plaintiff. The court deferred the final decree until the plaintiff obtained the necessary letter of administration. The court also stayed the operation of the order for four weeks upon the oral prayer of the counsel for defendant No. 1.

← Previous Next →