9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under Section 148. 2. Validity of assessments made on a single legal heir. 3. Source and ownership of FDRs and interest income. 4. Procedural compliance in issuing notices to all legal heirs. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 148: The primary legal contention raised by the assessee was that the notices under Section 148 were invalid as they were served only on one legal heir, Shri Ashok Kumar, despite the existence of seven legal heirs. The assessee argued that for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82, the notices should have been served on all legal heirs, and similarly, for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86, the notices issued under Section 148 were also invalid for the same reason. 2. Validity of Assessments Made on a Single Legal Heir: The assessee contended that the assessments made solely on Shri Ashok Kumar were invalid. It was argued that after the death of the assessee on 24-5-1980, no income could accrue to the deceased, and any income should have been assessed in the hands of the legal heirs individually, in proportion to their shares. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents to support this argument, including decisions from the Gauhati and Gujarat High Courts. 3. Source and Ownership of FDRs and Interest Income: The factual issue revolved around whether the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to Rs. 7,02,000, purchased in the name of the deceased, actually belonged to the deceased in his individual capacity or were withdrawals from the firms where the deceased was a partner. The Assessing Officer had added the interest accrued on these FDRs to the income of the deceased, which was contested by the assessee, arguing that the FDRs were margin money against excise duty liability of the firm M/s. S.N. Jaiswal. 4. Procedural Compliance in Issuing Notices to All Legal Heirs: The legal argument extended to the procedural compliance of issuing notices to all legal heirs. The assessee argued that the failure to issue notices to all legal heirs invalidated the assessments. The first appellate authority, however, directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain all legal heirs and issue notices accordingly, without annulling the assessments. Separate Judgments: Accountant Member's Judgment: The Accountant Member upheld the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 148 against Shri Ashok Kumar, citing that he attended the proceedings and was given full opportunity to explain. The Member referenced the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in Sumantbhai C. Munshaw's case, which allowed for exceptions where legal representatives, if present and participating, could not later claim the proceedings were invalid. The assessments were set aside to the Assessing Officer to re-process de novo after bringing other legal heirs on record. Judicial Member's Judgment: The Judicial Member disagreed, holding that the assessments were nullity since notices were not served on all legal heirs, referencing the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's decision in Jai Prakash Singh's case. The Member emphasized that all legal heirs must be impleaded and served notices for the assessments to be valid. The Judicial Member annulled the assessments on this ground, asserting that procedural irregularities rendered the assessments void ab initio. Third Member's Judgment: The Third Member, resolving the difference, sided with the Accountant Member, noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh's case (1996) had reversed the Gauhati High Court's decision, holding that non-service of notice to all legal heirs was an irregularity, not a nullity. The Third Member confirmed that the assessments should be set aside and re-processed de novo after issuing notices to all legal heirs, aligning with the Supreme Court's view that procedural defects do not invalidate the substantive liability. Conclusion: The final decision, based on the majority opinion, upheld the approach of setting aside the assessments for de novo processing, ensuring notices were issued to all legal heirs, thus aligning with the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Prakash Singh's case. The assessments were not annulled but remanded for proper procedural compliance.
|
