TMI Blog1962 (9) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant previous year for the assessment year 1951-1952, was assessed against Ponnammal treating her as the legal representative of her deceased husband. Ponnammal, however, surrendered her husband's estate on March 17, 1951, in favour of Vridhachala Reddiar, the nearest reversioner to succeed to the estate of Chidambara. For the assessment year 1952-1953, Vridhachala was assessed as the legal representative of Chidambara for the period between January 1, 1951, to March 16, 1951, and as the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his two sons, Ramanathan and Rajagopalan for the rest of the year. This was dated June 5, 1953. In the meantime Ponnammal died on June 29, 1952, and Vridhachala died on January 1, 1956. For the year ended March 31, 1951, the previous year for the assessment year 1951-52, the original assessment of the income of Chidambara against his wife, the deceased Ponnammal, was sought to be reopened under section 34 of the Act on the ground that a sum of ₹ 39,362 has escaped tax. A notice under this provision was issued on March 26, 1956, on Ramanathan who was then the karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his brother, Rajago ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrender from Ponnammal, with those properties and made no distinction between the two sets of properties. In his hands all the properties, namely, the properties which he had obtained as a result of partition in the year 1942, and the properties he obtained by reason of the surrender became stamped with the character of joint family properties. The treatment of the properties inherited by Vridhachala did not affect his character as the succeeding reversioner of Chidambara. After the inheritance of the properties it is always open to the person inheriting to deal with the properties in any manner he likes. But his character as the personal heir of the deceased continues irrespective of the manner of the dealing of the properties and his liability attributed to such character cannot certainly be affected by the mode of his dealing with the properties. Vridhachala died and of course there was no inheritance to the family properties held by him by reason of the continuance of the joint family of himself and his sons. Ramanathan and Rajagopalan, therefore, became entitled to the properties by the operation of the rule of survivorship. The properties which came into their hands partly co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts to K. Vridhachala Reddiar on March 17, 1951, who had converted them into family assets from April 1, 1951, the liability to any tax on the estate of Chidambara Reddiar cannot attach to your petitioner now. The substance of this contention is that the individuality of the estate of Chidambara has become merged in the joint family assets held by Vridhachala and his sons and after Vridhachala's death by his sons alone, and that, therefore, Ramanathan as an individual is not a legal representative within the meaning of section 24B. It must be noted that it is not Ramanathan's contention that he is not the heir of the deceased Chidambara, and that he is not in possession of the estate of the late Chidambara. There is no definition of legal representative in the Income-tax Act. Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code defines it as follows: 2. (11) Legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re are other legal representatives who ought to be joined in the action, and that he alone cannot represent the estate the default on the part of the person suing in not taking note of the plea, and not taking the proper steps to have all of them before the court may be fatal to the maintainability of the action. But if the legal representative impleaded does not put forward any such plea but merely contents himself by saying that he is not the legal representative and the person suing bona fide believes that he is the legal representative and prosecutes the action, the proceedings would be valid. In Alfred v. First Additional Income-tax Officer [1957] 32 I.T.R. 401, this court held that the liability imposed by section 24B(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act on the legal representative of a deceased person attached itself to all the legal representatives on whom notices are served, and that all such legal representatives are liable to be served with notices under that section. At page 406, the learned judges posed the following question: The question before us, however, is whether where there is plurality of legal representatives and that fact is known to the Income-tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person of ordinary prudence or commonsense would agree to his being treated as a legal representative so as to cause prejudice to the estate. Learned counsel for the assessee referred us to the decision of this court in Muniammal v. Third Additional Income-tax Officer [1960] 38 I.T.R. 664. The facts in that case were as follows: R was an assessee. He was running a bus service. He died intestate in October, 1956, leaving surviving his widow, his daughter and his mother. The widow entered into possession of his estate and claimed to be the proprietrix of the bus service and submitted returns, in income-tax assessments for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58. She was assessed to tax on the basis of these returns, and she duly paid the tax. R's mother filed a suit against the widow and the daughter claiming partition and a share in the estate of R including the asset involved in the business of bus service. In order to establish her title to obtain the relief by way of partition, she applied to the Income-tax Officer for grant of certified copies of the returns submitted by R and by his widow for the years 1951-1952 to 1956-1957, and the orders of assessments for those years. The w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent thing to say that the proceeding against one of them alone in a representative capacity should be held to be bad on the ground that the person impleaded alone cannot fully represent the estate. It is not as if that the representative character is distributed, fractionally among all the legal representatives giving rise to the conception of a fractional representation, because of the fact of impleading one of them alone. The representative character of one of several co-heirs is always there and he can represent the estate so that any decision rendered in the proceedings against him would bind not merely himself but the estate also as such. In a case where fraud and collusion are established between the person impleaded and the adversary the proceedings are vitiated not so much because that there has been no full representation of the estate but because fraud is a circumstance which would not vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in a court of law. In the present case the facts are quite clear. It was not the contention of Ramanathan that he is only one of the legal representatives and should not be discriminatingly proceeded against in the absence of his brother, Rajago ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
