9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the points involved in the petitions are the same. They have, therefore, been heard together. For purposes of this order, facts in C. W. No. 85 of 1967 alone are being referred to. The petitioner in C. W. No. 85 of 1967 is Miss Sunita Sabharwal, minor daughter of H. L. Sabharwal. Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, provided for voluntary disclosure of income on conditions mentioned therein, by a person who had failed to furnish return or which had not been disclosed in the return of income on or before the 19th day of August, 1965. The income so declared was to be liable to tax at the rates specified in sub-section (3) of section 24, but was exempt from all other penalties, etc., otherwise provided by law in terms of this section. On March 30, 1966, a declaration disclosing an income of Rs. 10,000 was filed by the mother of the minor petitioner in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties and find substance in the contentions of the department. Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, provided for voluntary disclosure of income. According to sub-section (1), subject to the provisions of this sub-section where any person made, on or after the 19th August, 1965, and before the 1st April, 1966, a declaration in accordance with sub-section (2) in respect of the amount representing income chargeable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or the Income-tax Act, 1961, for any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 1964, for which he had failed to furnish a return within the time allowed by the two Acts or had failed to disclose in the return of income filed by him on or before the 19th August, 1965, under either of the two Acts or which had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of such person to make a return under either of the said Acts or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the two Acts, be liable to pay income-tax in accordance with sub-section (3) of this section in respect of the amount so declared. Sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty wherever it was necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate. The filing of the declaration in the instant case was an act reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor and for the protection arid benefit of the minor's estate. The father, therefore, was the person competent in law to file the declaration and to sign it on behalf of the minor. In the presence of the father, the mother could not do the same. She came only after the father, i.e., if the father was no more in existence or capable to act. Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act also provides that, after the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of or deal with the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being de facto guardian of the minor. This makes the position further clear. The mother, even if she be a de facto guardian, is incompetent to deal with the property of the minor in the presence of the father. The filing of the declaration on behalf of the minor entailed consequences of the disclosed income of the minor being taxed in accordance with sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a next friend of the minor or his guardian in the suit. The learned counsel submitted that in view of this provision there was no bar to the mother of the minor acting as a guardian of the minor and to sign the declaration. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the observations in Girdhari Lohar v. Anand Lohar. The argument has no merits. Provisions of Order 32, Code of Civil Procedure, are not attracted for purposes of the Income-tax Act. Except section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing for service of notice generally, my attention was not drawn to any other provision in this Act, making the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to it. The next friend or guardian for purposes of a suit can in fact be any person appointed by the court and not necessarily guardians enumerated in section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. That is a special provision made for purposes of the suits. The guardian appointed in the suit does not become a guardian of the minor for all other purposes. The powers of a person appointed by the court as next friend of minor are limited to the legal proceedings in which the appointment is made and do not extend beyond it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income declared had been detected or deemed to have been detected by the Income-tax Officer prior to the date of declaration, make an order in writing to that effect and forward a copy thereof to the declarant after compliance with the terms of this clause. Clause (b) of this sub-section provides what income shall be deemed to have been detected by the Income-tax Officer. The period of 30 days prescribed by this sub-section cannot be extended. After the expiry of this period the Commissioner loses jurisdiction to make any order in regard to the detected or deemed to have been detected income comprised in the declaration. To say that an invalid declaration could be validated by ratification after the expiry of these thirty days would be to render nugatory the provisions of this sub-section. It is difficult for this reason to accept the argument that ratification after the expiry of thirty days could make the declaration valid. The letter of the petitioner's father dated September 17, 1966, therefore, is of no avail in the instant case. The learned counsel, lastly, contended that the filing of the declaration by the mother was not a " dealing with the property of the minor " and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
