1972 (8) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioners in all these petitions are minors. Declarations of voluntary disclosure of income under section 24 of Act No. 15 of 1965 were submitted on their behalf through persons other than the natural guardian which were returned by the Income-tax Officers concerned with the objection that the same were invalid as they did not bear the signature of the natural guardian of the minors. The petitioners in all the petitions have assailed these orders - petitioners, minors have not been able to make out a case for the reliefs prayed for by them in the writ petitions - Petitions dismissed

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the voluntary disclosure of income declaration signed by a person other than the natural guardian of a minor.
2. Competency of the mother to sign the declaration on behalf of the minor.
3. Applicability of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in determining the natural guardian.
4. Relevance of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the Income-tax Act.
5. Effect of ratification by the father of the minor after the prescribed date for filing the declaration.
6. Whether filing the declaration constitutes dealing with the property of the minor under section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Declaration:

The petitioners, all minors, submitted declarations of voluntary disclosure of income under section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, signed by persons other than their natural guardians. The Income-tax Officers returned these declarations as invalid, stating that they did not bear the signature of the natural guardian of the minors. The court found substance in the department's contention that the declarations were invalid as they were not signed by the natural guardian.

2. Competency of the Mother to Sign the Declaration:

The court determined that the mother of the minor, in the presence of the father, was not competent to sign the declaration. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, designates the father as the natural guardian of a minor, and only after the father, the mother. Section 8 of the Act empowers the natural guardian to act for the benefit of the minor's estate. Therefore, the father, being the natural guardian, was the only person competent to sign the declaration on behalf of the minor.

3. Applicability of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956:

The court referred to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to determine the natural guardian. Section 6 of the Act specifies the father as the natural guardian of a minor, followed by the mother. Section 11 of the Act states that no person shall deal with the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of being a de facto guardian. Thus, the mother, even as a de facto guardian, was incompetent to deal with the minor's property in the presence of the father.

4. Relevance of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

The petitioners' counsel argued that under rule 4 of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person of sound mind and majority could act as a next friend or guardian of the minor. However, the court held that the provisions of Order 32 are not applicable to the Income-tax Act. The guardian appointed in a suit does not become a guardian for all other purposes, and the powers of a next friend are limited to the legal proceedings in which the appointment is made.

5. Effect of Ratification by the Father:

The father of the minor ratified the declaration by a letter dated September 17, 1966, after the last date for filing the declaration (March 31, 1966). The court held that ratification after the expiry of the prescribed period could not validate the declaration. Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, requires the Commissioner of Income-tax to act within 30 days of receiving the declaration. Ratification beyond this period would render the provisions of the section nugatory.

6. Dealing with the Property of the Minor:

The court rejected the argument that filing the declaration did not constitute dealing with the property of the minor. The declared income of Rs. 10,000 was the minor's property, and by making the declaration, it was exposed to tax liability. Thus, the filing of the declaration amounted to dealing with the minor's property, which the mother was not authorized to do under section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the declarations were invalid as they were not signed by the natural guardian (father) and the mother was not competent to act on behalf of the minor in this context. The petitions failed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.

← Previous Next →