Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1974 DIGILAW 425 (MAD)

C. Doraiswamy v. Tax Recovery Officer

1974-09-27

RAMANUJAM, V.RAMASWAMY

body1974
Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J. One S. Ramaswamy Gounder died on 12th December, 1965. He had executed a registered will on 1st May, 1965 under which the petitioner herein and one C. Krishnan are the legatee. For the asst. yrs. 1965-66 and 1966-67 the ITO, Circle I(1), Erode completed the assessment on the estate of the said S. Ramaswami Gounder. For the asst. yrs. 1965-66 the total income was determined at Rs. 57, 190 and after deducting the annuity deposit payable at Rs. 5, 720 the net taxable income was computed at Rs. 51, 470. For the asst. yr. 1966-67 the ITO 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 ITO called upon the petitioner as legal representative to the estate of S. Ramaswami Gounder to pay the arrears of annuity deposit amounts. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the CIT 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 the depositor under Chapter 22-A of the IT Act was dead, and that in any event, S. 280-T which contemplated initiation of recovery proceedings in relation to annuity deposits having been omitted w.e.f. 1st April, 1967, no recovery proceedings could be validly initiated as regards annuity deposits. The CIT, however, was not inclined to inference in the matter. Thereafter the petitioner moved the CBDT for granting exemption from payment of annuity deposit. That petition also did not succeed. 3. Then, the TRO, the respondent herein, issued a notice dt. 25th May, 1971 acting under r. 2, Sch. II of the IT Act, 1961 based on a certificate of recovery issued by the ITO for a sum of Rs. 5, 230 being the arrears of annuity deposit amounts for the years 1964-65 and 1966-67. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said demand dt. 25th May, 1971 in this writ petition, raising the following contentions. II of the IT Act, 1961 based on a certificate of recovery issued by the ITO for a sum of Rs. 5, 230 being the arrears of annuity deposit amounts for the years 1964-65 and 1966-67. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said demand dt. 25th May, 1971 in this writ petition, raising the following contentions. (1) Sec. 280-T which contemplated initiation of recovery proceedings in relation to annuity deposit amounts having been deleted w.e.f. 1st April, 1967 by S. 32 of the Finance Act of 1966, no annuity deposit could be recovered on or after 1st April, 1967, and by the omission of S. 280-T the entire machinery for enforcement and collection of annuity deposit stood abolished and (2) Even assuming that S. 280T is available to the Department, for enforcing the 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. 4. The first of the above two contentions has already been considered by this Court in J.K.K. (supra) 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 provision relating to annuity deposit were omitted from the IT Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 1966, could be enforced even after the said date notwithstanding the said omission, taking advantage of S. 6 of the General Clause Act, 1997. In view of the said decision, the first contention has to be rejected and it is rejected according. 5. As regards the second contention that a legal representative of a deceased who was liable to pay annuity deposit cannot be proceeded against for recovery of the same, it is submitted by Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 22-A of the IT Act dealing with annuity deposit being a self-contained code be itself for recovering the annuity deposits, it is only the provisions contained in that Chapter that have to be invoked, that the petitioner, though a legal representative, is not a defaulter in relation to the annuity deposits as contemplated by the provisions of that Chapter and that, therefore, the provisions relating to recovery of Income-tax cannot be invoked for recovery of the annuity deposits. What in effect the learned counsel contends is that unless there is a specific provision in Ch. 22-A of the IT Act enabling recovery of the annuity deposits payable by a deceased from his legal representative, the liability comes to an end on the death of the deceased, and it could not be revived and enforced against the legal representative. The learned counsel points out that there should have been specific provisions like S. 2(2) and S. 24(b) of the IT Act, 1922 roping in the legal representative within the definition of 'depositor' in Chapter 22-A of the IT Act, 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 ITO at the stage of the assessment that he is not liable to pay the annuity deposit and that, therefore, there could not be any direction for payment of the annuity deposit in the assessment. After having had the benefit of deduction of the annuity deposit from the assessed tax., the petitioner now turns round and says that as a legal representative he is not liable to pay the annuity deposit amounts. That the deceased was liable to pay the annuity deposit is not in dispute and it cannot be disputed in view of the decision in J. K. K. Angappan vs. ITO (supra). Therefore, the only question that has to be considered here is whether the petitioner as legal representative of the depositor who is liable to pay the annuity deposit can be proceeded against as representating the estate of the deceased. Therefore, the only question that has to be considered here is whether the petitioner as legal representative of the depositor who is liable to pay the annuity deposit can be proceeded against as representating the estate of the deceased. In this case the respondent has proceeded to invoke r. 2 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of a tax recovery certificate issued under S. 222. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner generally submits that Chapter 22-A of the IT Act dealing with annuity deposits is a self contained chapter that should be invoked for recovery of the annuity deposits, he concedes that in the case of the depositor himself of other provisions contained in Chapter 17-D could be validly resorted to. Thus he modifies this submission that though the provisions contained in Chapter 17-D could be invoked for recovery of annuity deposits from the depositor it could not be invoked as against legal representatives. In this connection it must be noted that S. 280-T before it was omitted by Act 13 of 1966 was as follows :- "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any arrears of annuity deposit and any penalty imposed under this Chapter shall be recoverable in the manner provided in Chapter XVII-D for arrears of tax." * As per the said section arrears of annuity deposit or penalties imposed under Chapter 22A are recoverable in the manner provided in Chapter 17-D of the IT Act, for the recovery of arrears of tax. Sec. 156 of the IT Act of the 1961 as it then stood was as follows :- "156. Notice of demand. When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum (including annuity deposit referred to in Chapter XXII-A) is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the ITO shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form the specifying the sum so payable." * Thus, a combined reading of ss. Notice of demand. When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum (including annuity deposit referred to in Chapter XXII-A) is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the ITO shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form the specifying the sum so payable." * Thus, a combined reading of ss. 280-T and 156 as they stood before 1st April, 1967 shows that annuity deposit amounts are recoverable by resort to the provisions contained in Chapter 17-D. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 22-A is a self contained code and the recovery has to be made only under the provisions of that Chapter without resort to the other provisions in the IT Act is not, therefore, tenable. It is true, S. 280-T has been omitted from Chapter 22-A and S. 156 has also been amended by omitting the words "including annuity deposits referred to in Chapter 22-A". But as already pointed out in J. K. K. Angappan vs. ITO (supra), the omission of S. 280-T as also the deletion of the words "including annuity deposits referred to in Chapter 22-A" from S. 156 cannot affect the liability for the annuity deposits already accured or the right to recover the same. The petitioner's counsel is, therefore, not right in his submission that the provisions contained in Chapter 17-D cannot be resorted to for recovery of annuity deposits. Sec. 159 specifically states that where a person dies his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the 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 S. 159 deals with any sum payable by the deceased under the IT Act which may included annuity deposit 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 S. 159 once his plea that Chapter 22-A is a self contained code has not been accepted. Thus the second contention also fails. 6. The result is that writ petitioner is dismissed and the rule nisi is discharged. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.