9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jit Singh was alive. During the proceedings thereof, he died. The petitioner as the father of Ranjit Singh, as also the other partners, were associated in the proceedings. Ultimately vide two orders of even date dated 30th August, 1971, Shri Bhupinder Singh, the Assessing Authority, Kaithal, came to the conclusion that the partners and Ranjit Singh deceased were jointly and severally responsible for all the liabilities under the Tax Act. The demand created for the assessment year 1967-68 was Rs. 38.33 and for the assessment year 1968-69 was Rs. 5,164.20 only. However, in the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1968-69, an observation came about, which is to the following effect: "........ Shri Ranjit Singh was a member of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has also been laid therein that the liability was fastened in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act as all the assets and liabilities of the deceased partner had been transferred to his heirs. To crown it all, this stance has been repeated a number of times in the return without a trace of the petitioner constituting a joint Hindu family with his deceased son Ranjit Singh. 4.. Though this Court does not decide questions of fact in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India normally and takes statements of facts contained in the impugned orders to be sacrosanct, nevertheless the pleadings of the parties have to be read in conjunction therewith in order to deduce what is the real controversy. It seem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity which did not exist factually or legally. The notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner alone as an heir of the deceased partner and the recovery could only be effected from the petitioner if he had received any assets as part of the estate of the deceased partner as an heir. This clearly postulated an enquiry and the affording of an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in that direction. This conceivably was not done. 6.. As a result of the foregoing discussion, these petitions are partially allowed but only to the extent that the Assessing Authority, Kaithal, will determine whether the petitioner has received any assets as an heir from the deceased partner and if so, then out of the same he may recover the outstandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
