1971 (10) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Garnishee order - whether the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was valid

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Whether the petitioner-firm's actions in allowing withdrawals from the deceased partner's credit were valid.
3. Ownership and control of the funds in question.
4. Compliance with the garnishee proceeding under section 46(5A) of the Act.
5. Validity of the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Madras, delivered by Justice Ramaprasada Rao, dealt with a case involving the partnership firm of M. Sadulla Basha and the heirs of the deceased partner. The primary issue was the validity of a notice issued under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Officer. The notice directed the firm not to pay the amount in the deceased partner's credit to anyone due to arrears of income tax. The court emphasized that section 46(5A) is a garnishee proceeding intended to protect the revenue's interests by preventing the dissipation of funds owed as taxes. The court ruled that the notice was valid and the firm's non-compliance made it liable for the consequences.

Regarding the ownership and control of the funds in question, the court rejected the firm's argument that the funds ceased to be the deceased partner's asset after being converted into share capital for the heirs. The court held that the voluntary act of the heirs could not change the ownership of the funds, which still belonged to the deceased. The firm was deemed to be aware that it was dealing with the deceased's funds with the consent of the heirs, making it a garnishee in the eyes of the law. As there was no change in the character of the funds, the court upheld the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer as valid and within jurisdiction.

The judgment also addressed the petitioner's contention that withdrawals made by the heirs as partners of the reconstituted firm in 1952 should prevent the demand raised by the revenue. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the funds remained the deceased partner's assets and the firm should have complied with the notice under section 46(5A). The court discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the writ petition, directing the revenue to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded with an order for costs and counsel's fee.

In summary, the court upheld the validity of the notice under section 46(5A), rejected the firm's claim that the funds no longer belonged to the deceased partner, and ruled that the firm's actions in allowing withdrawals were not valid. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with garnishee proceedings to protect the revenue's interests and directed the revenue to take appropriate action against the petitioner.