1968 (9) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - imposition of the penalty - validity - jurisdiction of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to impose the penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity and sustainability of the penalty imposed on the appellant.
2. Competency and jurisdiction of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to impose the penalty after forwarding the certificate under section 41 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the imposition of a penalty on a receiver appointed in a partition suit involving the heirs of a deceased individual. The receiver, appointed in the suit, received notices for tax payment related to the deceased's agricultural income. The key issue was whether the penalty imposed on the receiver was valid and sustainable. The court examined the definition of "assessee" under section 2(d) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, emphasizing that no assessment had been made on the receiver as envisaged by the Act or as a legal representative of the deceased. The court also referred to the Hindu Succession Act, which governs the devolution of property in cases of death. It was established that the legal representatives who inherited the sthanam properties were liable for the tax, not the receiver. Consequently, the court ruled that the receiver could not be considered the "assessee" for penalty imposition purposes, leading to a negative answer to the first question in favor of the receiver and against the department. As a result, the second question regarding the competency and jurisdiction of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not require consideration.