9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the WTO under section 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (' the Act '), were directed against Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, the executrix and widow of Shri Maneklal A. Mehta, and were served on her. Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta died on 12-3-1980. The assessments were completed a fortnight thereafter on 28-3-1980. In the assessment orders, the assessee was described as ' late Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, executrix of the will of late Shri Maneklal A. Mehta by legal heirs, Maneklal A. Mehta Bungalow, Navroji Lane, Ghatkopar, Bombay '. 2. On 1-7-1980, the WTO passed orders under section 35 of the Act, stating as follows : " It is seen that there is a mistake in calculation. Similarly, the status of the assessee is wrongly taken as AOP instead of an ' individual '. The mistake being apparent from records is hereby rectified. Issue fresh demand notice." 3. The Commissioner formed an opinion that the above assessment orders, including the rectification orders, were erroneous so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. According to him, these orders were ' basically not supported by law and no proper demand could be raised on the basis of the same '. He, therefore, issued no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion here that no arguments were addressed to us by the learned counsel for the assessee regarding this ground. 7. The next ground raised is about the validity of the notices issued by the Commissioner. It is said that notices were addressed as under : " Estate of late Shri Maneklal A. Mehta comprising of late Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, Dhirubhai M. Mehta and others." It is contended that it was not specified in the notices as to who ' and others ' were and that no notice had been given to ' and others ', and, as such, the notices were bad in law. We are unable to accept this contention. The mare fact that the notices contain the words ' and others ' would not render the notices invalid. The next contention was that in the assessment orders, the name of the assessee is mentioned as ' late Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, the executrix of the will of late Shri Maneklal A. Mehta by legal heirs '. While in the notices under section 25, the description was different and that for this reason, notices were bad in law. This contention also cannot be sustained. It is to be noted, that what has been assessed is the property of Shri Maneklal A. Mehta, who died on 27-6-1969. The assessment was to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng status. It was submitted that it followed from those observations that the assessment was on a non-existing person and was, therefore, a nullity, with the result that the Commissioner was not competent to correct the error in the said assessment orders. We are unable to accept this contention. The mere fact that the assessment order mentioned the name of the assessee as ' late Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, the executrix of the will of late Shri Maneklal A. Mehta by legal heirs ', would not render the assessment orders as null and void. There is difference between an assessment on a dead person and an assessment wherein the name of the dead person is mentioned due to inadvertent error, committed by the assessing officer. This was not an assessment on a dead person. What was being assessed was the estate of late Shri Maneklal A. Mehta in the hands of the executrix Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta. Notices were duly served on the said executrix in the course of the assessment proceedings. After the hearing was completed, the said executrix died. The date of hearing was 12-3-1980 and the assessment orders were passed on 28-3-1980. It is mentioned in the assessment order for the assessment year 1970-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ix had died on 12-3-1980. They had also placed a list of legal heirs. Subsequently, on 19-3-1980 the eldest son, Shri Dhirubhai M. Mehta, had appeared with the advocate, Shri Gulanikar, and discussed the case. From the conduct of the eldest son of the deceased (Shri Dhirubhai M. Mehta), it was obvious that he was representing the estate and was guarding the interests of the estate. Thus, the estate was duly represented before the WTO. In the circumstances, it is immaterial that the third son, Anil Kumar, had not appeared. The circumstances of the present case prima facie indicate that the estate was duly represented by the persons who were in possession of the properties. For this reason also, the assessments cannot be said to be null and void. All that can be said is that there was irregularity and such irregularity could be corrected by revisional orders. We shall now briefly deal with the three decisions, on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee. The first decision is the First. Addl. ITO v. Mrs. Suseela Sadanandan [1965] 57 ITR 168. In that case, the Supreme Court had set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state of the deceased cannot be said to have been duly represented and, as such, the assessment order would be null and void. In our case, the estate of the deceased, Shri Maneklal A. Mehta, was duly represented by the executrix Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta and after her death on 12-1-1980, the estate was duly represented by two of the three sons of the deceased, viz., Shri Dhirubhai M. Mehta and Shri Hiralal M. Mehta. In the circumstances, the ratio of the said decision would not be applicable. 13. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298. That decision is an authority for the proposition that if the initiation of proceeding is in accordance with law, then any illegality which supervened subsequently, would not vitiate the whole proceeding and that the proceeding can be continued from the stage at which the illegality supervened. In that case, the AAC set aside the order of penalty as defective and directed refund of the penalty. The infirmity in the proceeding was that reasonable opportunity of being heard had not been granted. After the order of the AAC, the ITO issued further notice and granted opportunity of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
