COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG vs. JAI PRAKASH SINGH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2542/1977Supreme Court[1996] 3 S.C.R. 37713 March 1996Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR OF12 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, B.N. Singh, died in 1967 without filing income tax returns for assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1967-68. His ten legal representatives included three widows, four sons, and three daughters. The eldest son, Jai Prakash Singh, filed the returns on behalf of all legal representatives. The Income Tax Officer issued notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) to Jai Prakash Singh, who complied. The assessment orders were made in the status of 'individual' and named all ten legal representatives. Jai Prakash Singh appealed, arguing the assessments were void due to non-service of notices on the other nine legal representatives. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held this an irregularity, set aside the orders, and remanded for fresh assessment with notice to all. The Tribunal affirmed this. The High Court, however, ruled the assessments null and void for lack of notice to all legal representatives. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct in its finding that the assessment orders were null and void. The Court reasoned that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices, as provided by procedural provisions, does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax which is created by substantive charging sections. Such omissions or defects may render an order irregular, depending on the nature of the non-compliance, but they do not make the order void or illegal. The Court relied on precedents like Chatturam and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, and Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The Court found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had correctly characterized the issue as an irregularity. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and answered the referred question in favour of the Revenue, upholding the direction for fresh assessments after notice to all legal representatives.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment orders made by the Income Tax Officer without notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased B.N. Singh are null and void in law or merely irregular/defective proceedings. (Mixed law and fact, turning on Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions (as argued before the High Court and Tribunal): The assessments were illegal and void because notices under Section 143(2) were not served on all ten legal representatives of the deceased assessee. This omission rendered the assessment proceedings a nullity. Revenue's contentions (as argued before the Supreme Court): The High Court erred in holding the assessment orders null and void. The omission to serve notices on all legal representatives constituted at best an irregularity, not a fundamental defect invalidating the assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal correctly identified it as an irregularity justifying a remand for fresh assessment with proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(7),Section 2(29),Section 142,Section 143,Section 159

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 "

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(7)

All 52 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(7) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →