1985 (2) TMI 79 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the return filed by Shri Shyamsundar Naskar.
2. Alleged lack of notice to other accountable persons.
3. Mental soundness of Shri Shyamsundar Naskar.
4. Valuation of the estate.
5. Procedural fairness and opportunity for accountable persons to be heard.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Return Filed by Shri Shyamsundar Naskar:
The primary issue revolves around the return filed by Shri Shyamsundar Naskar, which formed the basis of the assessment completed by the Assistant Controller. The other accountable persons claimed they had no knowledge of such a return, and Shri Shyamsundar Naskar himself denied filing it. The Assistant Controller's assessment was based on the valuation provided in this return, which was contested.

2. Alleged Lack of Notice to Other Accountable Persons:
The accountable persons argued that they did not receive any notice of hearing from the Assistant Controller, which was a significant procedural lapse. This claim was supported by affidavits filed by Shri Gourchandra Naskar and Radheshyam Naskar, stating they were not given an opportunity to present their views. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Controller did not specify who the other accountable persons were or whether they were properly notified, which was a critical oversight.

3. Mental Soundness of Shri Shyamsundar Naskar:
The mental soundness of Shri Shyamsundar Naskar was another contentious point. The accountable persons contended that Shri Shyamsundar Naskar was not of sound mind when the return was filed. The Appellate Controller dismissed this claim, noting that no evidence was provided to support it. However, a certificate dated 2-9-1975 from Anchal Pradhan, indicating that Shri Shyamsundar Naskar developed a mental disorder after his father's death, was not considered by the lower authorities.

4. Valuation of the Estate:
The valuation of the estate was contested as being abnormally high. The accountable persons argued that the valuation was arbitrarily set and did not reflect the actual market value. The Assistant Controller's assessment was primarily based on the return filed by Shri Shyamsundar Naskar, which the accountable persons claimed was filled in by others to harass them. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessing authority must ascertain the correct state of affairs and not rely solely on the return filed.

5. Procedural Fairness and Opportunity for Accountable Persons to be Heard:
The Tribunal found that the other accountable persons were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which was a significant procedural lapse. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Madan Lal Lohia v. Assistant Controller, emphasizing the need for all legal heirs and accountable persons to be involved in the assessment process to avoid unnecessary litigation and ensure fairness.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below, directing the Assistant Controller to dispose of the assessment afresh in accordance with the law. The Assistant Controller was instructed to give all concerned accountable persons and legal representatives an opportunity to be heard and to consider the observations made by the Tribunal. The stay petition was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.