| Case ID |
430e9243-cc37-4846-b4df-63ea9ab792d6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WRIT PETITION No. 157 OF 1958 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 16, 1961 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that the petitioner, as the legal representative of the deceased, was liable to pay the tax due from the deceased, but emphasized that no amount of arrears could be claimed without a prior notice of demand under section 29 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The ruling highlighted that the definition of 'assessee' includes those liable to pay tax, regardless of whether their income was assessed. Consequently, the certificate for recovery sent to the collector was quashed due to the lack of a demand notice, reinforcing the necessity of procedural compliance in tax recovery matters. |
| Summary |
In the case of WRIT PETITION No. 157 OF 1958 before the Mysore High Court, the primary legal question revolved around the liability of a legal representative to pay income tax owed by a deceased individual. The petitioner, B. Shah Mahmood, contended that he was not an assessee as defined under the Income Tax Act, 1922, since he had not received a notice of demand under section 29. The court ruled that while the petitioner was indeed liable for the tax as the legal representative, there was no enforceable amount due without the requisite notice. The judgment underscored the importance of proper procedural adherence in tax collection, asserting that a tax becomes due only upon demand. This case is significant for understanding the implications of tax liabilities on heirs and the importance of formal demand notices in tax law, making it a crucial reference in related legal discussions. |
| Court |
Mysore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
A.R. Somnath Iyer,
B.M. Kalagate
|
| Lawyers |
E.S. Venkataramiah,
D.M. Chandrasekher
|
| Petitioners |
B. Shah Mahmood
|
| Respondents |
Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram
|
| Citations |
1963 SLD 185,
(1963) 47 ITR 55
|
| Other Citations |
T.M.K. Abdul Kassim v. FAITO [1958] 33 ITR 466 (Mad.),
Alfred, E. v. Addl. ITO [1956] 29 ITR 708 (Mad.),
CIT v. Abdul Rahiman Sait [1961] 42 ITR 631 (Ker.),
Doorga Prosad v. Secretary of State [1945] 13 ITR 285 (PC),
Govindaswamy v. ITO [1960] 38 ITR 197,
Maddula Appa Rao v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 140 (AP),
Manjayya Krishna Shanbag v. Venkatappa [1959] (Mys.) LJ. 556,
Moti Lal Purshottam Das v. ITO [1960] 39 ITR 497 (AP),
Raja Manyam Meenakshamma v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 286 (AP),
Seth Badridas Daga v. CIT [1949] 17 ITR 209 (PC),
Sheik Abdul Sattar v. District Collector [1960] 40 ITR 27 (Mys.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
2(2),
222,
29,
46(2)
|