2022 (9) TMI 932 - HC - Income Tax

Liability of legal representatives of deceased - Appropriation of Outstanding Demand from the legal heirs of the deceased - HELD THAT - As per decision of this Court 2016 (8) TMI 1367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT we find that the controversy as to whether the legal representatives of deceased Giri Lal Jain were liable by virtue of Section 159 of Act, 1961 for the Wealth Tax as per the final assessment the orderhas been set at rest, in so far as the heirs and legal representatives of late Giri Lal Jain were concerned. The claim of the petitioners herein is that they are at the same footing as that of Sri Deepak Kumar Jain, (one of the sons of late Giri Lal Jain). And as determined in the judgment and order the petitioners herein are also entitled for the same relief. We find substance in the said submission and hold that nothing remains to be adjudicated on the controversy in question. The claim of the petitioners herein is covered by the judgment and order and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the said decision. We, therefore, dispose of the present petition with the observation that the competent authority shall consider the claim of the petitioners strictly in light of the judgment passed in 2016 (8) TMI 1367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Deepak vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others) and determine the amount to be refunded to both the petitioners herein along with interest as provided therein. The said determination shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of reciept of copy of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of appropriating tax liability of Amrish Kumar Jain from funds seized from the petitioners.
2. Entitlement of the petitioners to a refund based on the judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar Jain.
3. Applicability of Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning the liability of legal representatives for the tax dues of a deceased person.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Appropriating Tax Liability of Amrish Kumar Jain from Funds Seized from the Petitioners:
The court addressed whether the tax liability of Amrish Kumar Jain was rightly appropriated from the funds seized from the petitioners and kept in the P.D. account by the Revenue. The court noted that the firm M/s Girilal Mamchand and Company, initially constituted in 1951, was reconstituted in 1966 to include new partners, including Amrish Kumar Jain. After the death of Giri Lal Jain in 1973, and other partners by 1978, the firm effectively became a proprietorship under Amrish Kumar Jain. The court observed that the wealth tax assessments for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 were finalized in 1986 without any notice to the legal heirs of Giri Lal Jain. The court concluded that the petitioners had no business relations or participation in the proceedings that led to the tax liability, making the appropriation from their funds illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Entitlement of the Petitioners to a Refund Based on the Judgment in the Case of Deepak Kumar Jain:
The court referenced its previous judgment dated 11.08.2016, which had set aside the appropriation of funds from Deepak Kumar Jain, one of the sons of Giri Lal Jain, and directed a refund with interest. The court found that the petitioners were on the same footing as Deepak Kumar Jain and were entitled to the same relief. It was noted that the petitioners had no participation in the assessment proceedings and that the liability was imposed without any legal basis. The court ordered that the competent authority should consider the petitioners' claim in light of the previous judgment and determine the amount to be refunded along with interest within four weeks.

3. Applicability of Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court discussed the scope of Section 159, which makes legal representatives responsible for the tax liabilities of a deceased person to the extent of the estate inherited. The court clarified that the liability could not be imposed on the petitioners without showing that they inherited any estate from Giri Lal Jain. It was emphasized that no notice or opportunity was given to the legal heirs during the assessment proceedings, making the imposition of liability on the petitioners illegal. The court reiterated that the funds seized in the 2004 search had no connection with the assets of Giri Lal Jain, who had died 30 years earlier.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as Deepak Kumar Jain, including the refund of the appropriated amount with interest. The competent authority was directed to determine the refund amount within four weeks, ensuring that the petitioners receive the same treatment as granted in the judgment dated 11.08.2016. The court emphasized the illegality and lack of jurisdiction in appropriating the petitioners' funds for the tax liability of Amrish Kumar Jain.