LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG versus JAI PRAKASH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG A ), v. JAi PRAKASH SINGH MARCH 13, 1996 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1961 : -;· Ss.2(7),2(29), 142, 143, 159-Assessee-'Legal representatives'-Assess- ment-Service of notice-Assessee died without filing retum~ne of legal c representatives filing retums-Notice served upon him but not issued to other legal representatives-Assessment orders challenged as null and void for non-_se1Vice of notice on all legal representatives--Held, omission to se11'e or any defect in notices 111ay render assessnient order irregular but not void or illegal. D The assessee, who had not filed returns for the assessment years ~ 1965-66, 1966-67 amH967-68, died in 1967 leaving behind his legal repre- sentatives. The eldest son' J' filed the returns for the aforesaid assessment years. He was issued notices under ss.142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Notices were not issued to other legal representatives nor any objec- E tion was raised that they should have been issued notices. Assessment orders were made in the status of individual mentioning the names of all the ten legal representatives against the column "Name of the assessee". They were described as legal representatives of the deceased assessee. 'J' 1 filed appeals against the assessment order contending for the first time ~ that since all the legal representatives were not given notice of the assess- F men! proceedings, the assessments made were illegal and void. The Appel- late Assistant Commissioner held that non-service of notices npon all the legal representatives was only an irregularity in completing the assess- ment. He set aside the assessment orders and remitted the matters to the Income Tax Officer for making fresh assessment after notice to all the legal G representatives. The further appeals filed by 'J' were dismissed by the .,. ~ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee a reference was made to the High Court, which decided the reference in favour of the assessee holding that in the absence of service of notice on all the representatives, the assessment H 377 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A made was a nullity and not a mere irregularity. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not right in holding that the assess- B ment orders made are null and void. They are not. At the worst, they are derective proceedings - or irregular proceedings - as has been rightly held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. (383-H; 384-A] 1.2. An omission to serve or any derect in the service or notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to C pay tax where such liability is created by distinct substantive provisions (charging sections). Any such omission or derect may render the order made irregular - depending upon the nature or the provision not complied with - but certainly not void or illegal. (387-F-G] D Chatturam and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, (1947) 15 l.T.R. 302 and Estate of Late Ranga/al Jajodia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, (1971) 79 l.T.R. 505, relied on. , E F Maharja of Patia/a v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Bombay, (1943) 111.T.R. 202, rererred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2542-44 or 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.77 of the Assam High Court in l.T.R. No. 39 of 1974. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar Ms. A Subhashini and S.N. Terdol for the Appellants. N.R. Choudhary and D.N. Mukherjee for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ) B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. These appeals are preferred against the , J judgment of the Gauhati High Court answering the following question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue : H "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the .. -? C.l.T. v. JAIPRAKASHSINGH [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 379 Tribunal was correct in holding that non-service of notice under A section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against nine out of the ten legal representatives of the deceased Shri B.N. Singh did not invalidate the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1967-68 and that it was at best an irregularity for which the Appellate Assistant B Commissioner was justified in setting aside the asse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.