Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1974 (9) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osit payable at Rs. 5,720 the net taxable income was computed at Rs. 51,470. For the assessment year 1966-67, the Income-tax Officer determined the total income at Rs. 49,360 and after deducting the annuity deposit payable by him at Rs. 4,910 the net taxable income was computed at Rs. 44,450. After the completion of the said assessments the Income-tax Officer called upon the petitioner as legal representative to the estate of S. Ramaswami Gounder to pay the arrears of annuity deposit amounts. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Commissioner of Income-tax with a prayer that he should be relieved of the obligation of the payment of annuity deposit contending that a legal representative cannot be held liable to pay the annuity deposit when .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he payment of annuity deposits, the said provision cannot apply to the legal representative and, therefore, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner as a legal representative of the estate of the deceased, Ramaswami Gounder, are invalid. The first of the above two contentions has already been considered by this court in J. K. K. Angappan v. Income-tax Officer and it has been held that the liability to pay annuity deposit being a present liability which existed on 1st April, 1967, the date on which the provisions relating to annuity deposits were omitted from the Income-tax Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 1966, could be enforced even after the said date notwithstanding the said omission, taking advantage of section 6 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1961, and enabling recovery of annuity deposits from him, and that, in the absence of such a provision, no recovery could at all be made of annuity deposits as against the legal representative. We are not inclined to accept the above contention of the petitioner as tenable. It is true, the annuity deposit has normally to be made only by the depositor. But, in this case, the depositor died long before the assessment could be made and the assessment was in fact made on the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased. Admittedly, in the computation of the income-tax payable by the deceased credit has been given to the annuity deposit payable by him. It is not the case of the petitioner that he represented to the Income-tax Officer a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot be invoked as against legal representatives. In this connection it must be noted that section 280T, before it was omitted by Act 13 of 1966, was as follows : " For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any arrear of annuity deposit and any penalty imposed under this Chapter shall be recoverable in the manner provided in Chapter XVII-D for the recovery of arrears of tax." As per the said section arrears of annuity deposit or penalties imposed under Chapter 22-A are recoverable in the manner provided in Chapter 17-D of the Income-tax Act for the recovery of arrears of tax. Section 156 of the Income-tax Act of 1961, as it then stood, was as follows : 156. Notice of demand.--When any tax, interest, penalty fine or any ot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. It should be noted that the said section 159 deals with any sum payable by the deceased under the Income-tax Act which may include annuity deposits as well. It is not, therefore, open to the petitioner to say that he, as a legal representative, is not liable to pay the annuity deposit under section 159 once his plea that Chapter 22-A is a self-contained code has not been accepted. Thus, the second contention also fails. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed and the rule nisi is discharged. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates