Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 441/2012 1. Mukesh Sogani son of Motichand 2. Miss Harshita d/o Mukesh Sogani 3. Harsh son of Mukesh Sogani all resident of A-II, Sheerji Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Claimants-Appellants Versus 1. Sh. Bhoop Singh son of Sh. Prabhu Ram Yadav resident of Village Kharana Police Station- Kanena District Mahendragarh, Haryana-Driver 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Chairman, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur-Owner of Bus. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 16/2019 1 . Mukesh Sogani S/o Motichand, R/o A-Ii, Shreeji Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2 Miss Harshita D/o Mukesh Sogani, R/o A-Ii, Shreeji Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3 Harish S/o Mukesh Sogani, R/o A-Ii, Shreeji Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1 Shri Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Yadav, R/o Village Kharana, Police Station Kanena, District Mahendragarh (Haryana) Driver. 2 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur- Owner. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 26/04/2022 The misc. appeal filed by the claimants-appellants and the cross objections filed by the respondent No.2 arising out of

(2 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] common judgment and award, hence, both are being decided by this common judgment. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants against the judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC No.1745/2009 whereby an amount of Rs.2,83,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Dr. Indira Sogani in the accident occurred on 06.08.2009. When notices of the present appeal were issued to respondents, they submitted cross-objections against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Tribunal and took objection that there was contributory negligence on the part of the daughter of the deceased due to which accident occurred and she was not having any license to ply the scooter. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,83,000/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Income Tax Returns i.e. Ex.11,12 and 13 submitted by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was a Naturopathy Doctor and she was also doing the business of garments and she was having her own income but the Tribunal has seriously erred in not relying the same and without any basis the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a housewife and her income was determined as

(3 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] Rs.3000/- per month, hence, the impugned award needs interference. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that while passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has not granted future prospects to the appellants in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & anr. reported in 2020(1) ACTC (SC) 1 has held that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Munesh Devi @ Munni Devi Vs. Arvind reported in 2018 (2) ACTC (Raj.) 1167, in which this Court has held that there is no legal requirement to produce the Chartered Accountant to prove the Income Tax Return. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the recomputation of the award in the light of judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Malarvizhi (supra) and Munesh Devi @ Munni Devi (supra) may be done. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that a detailed cross-examination was done with the witness AW-2 Mukesh Sogani (husband of the deceased) with

(4 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] regard to income and business of the deceased, but he has failed to prove the income and business of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the Income Tax Returns Ex.11, 12 and 13 did not bear the signatures of the deceased, hence, genuineness of the said documents is doubtful. He further argued that there was contributory negligence on the part of daughter of the deceased, who was plying the scooter in a rash and negligent manner without having any license to ply the same. So, this is a case of contributory negligence and the respondents cannot be make liable for payment of entire amount of compensation. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Beela Ram Vs. Vishnu Kumar Khandelwal reported in (2011) 53 RCR(Civ) 644, Bontu Venkata Rao Vs. Kalla Venkataramana reported in (2003) 1 LS 283, Dinesh Adhlak Vs. Pritam Singh in MAC Appeal No.253 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010 and A Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy reported in (2005) ACJ 992. Lastly, he argued that the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 does not call for any interference by this Court and the appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed. I have heard and considered the submissions made at Bar by both the sides and gone through the judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 as well as other relevant documents available on record. Bare perusal of the record indicates that the claimants have submitted Income Tax Returns of the deceased pertaining to the assessment years i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Bare perusal of these ITRs clearly shows that the acknowledgment slips issued by the Department of Income Tax bear number and date of

(5 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] the receipts and these ITRs were submitted on receipts on 31.03.2008, 30.03.2009 and 21.07.2009 respectively. The last ITR submitted by the claimants indicates that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,77,740/- per year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi (supra) has held that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased and while deciding the issue in question, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para No.10 as under:- "The Tribunal proceeded to determine the agricultural income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of two judgments of the High Court. The Tribunal arrived at two different figures by applying the decisions and proceeded to determine the agricultural income on an average of the two amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible value of income from agricultural land despite a clear indication in the income tax returns of the income from agricultural land. The method adopted by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income reflected in the income tax returns for the assessment year 1997- 1998. The relevant portion of the return reads:

“Income from House property – Rs. 1,920 Business profit (other than 14.b) - Rs. 1,21,071 Net Agricultural income – Rs. 88,140” The tax return indicates an annual income of Rs 2,11,131 in the relevant assessment year. Mr Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that other documents were marked which reflected the income of the deceased. We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. To the benefit of the appellants, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income tax return for the assessment year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the deceased." This Court in the case of Munesh Devi @ Munni Devi (supra) has held that there is no legal requirement to produce the Chartered Accountant to prove the Income Tax Return and the

(6 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] Income Tax Returns submitted in the said matter, were taken into consideration for determining the income of the deceased in Para No. 5, which reads as under:- "The claim-petition was filed by the appellants for awarding compensation on account of death of Vijay Singh in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.03.2009. It was the case of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, there was no evidence on record to establish the income of the deceased to be Rs.20,000/-. The tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,600/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State Government. It is revealed that to prove the income of the deceased, income tax return (Ex.205) was tendered in evidence. In considered view of this Court, the tribunal has grossly erred in not believing income tax return (Ex.205). There is no legal requirement to produce Charted Accountant to prove the said income tax return. The reasons so assigned by the learned tribunal are hypothetical and misconceived. After exhibiting the same, there was no justified reason for discarding its contents. Thus, the tribunal ought to have taken into consideration income tax return (Ex.205) in determining the income of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the income tax return (Ex.205), the income of the deceased at the relevant time, is assessed as Rs.99,245/- per annum." After going through the documents and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that there is no force in the arguments raised by counsel for the respondents that the ITRs i.e. Ex.11,12 and 13 are not genuine documents as these documents did not bear the signatures of the deceased. Documents i.e. ITRs Ex. 11,12 and 13 are the acknowledgment slips which bear the number and date of the receipts and these ITRs were submitted on receipts of 31.03.2008, 30.03.2009 and 21.07.2009 respectively, which were prior to the date of accident i.e. 06.08.2009, so, there is no reason to disbelieve these documents in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malarvizhi (supra) and of this Court in the case of Munesh Devi @ Munni Devi (supra).

(7 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] So far as the second contention raised by the counsel for the respondents that there was contributory negligence on the part of daughter of the deceased is concerned, the same is not sustainable for the reason that bare perusal of the site plan Ex.3 clearly indicates that the scooter was plied by the daughter of the deceased in a right direction but the respondent No.1 caused the accident by striking the scooter by plying the bus in a rash and negligent manner in wrong direction and that is why charge sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC. It appears that the respondent-Corporation was satisfied with regard to this finding recorded by the Tribunal about the negligence of the respondent No.1, that is why no separate appeal/objection was submitted by the respondent-Corporation and it was for the first time when respondent-Corporation received the notices of the instant appeal and they became prudent to file the cross objections and took this objection by way of filing the cross objection. Be that as it may, the documents i.e. site plan and other documents clearly show that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, that is why charge sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC, so, it cannot be believed that there was contributory negligence on the part of daughter of the deceased. The judgments cited and relied upon by counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the deceased was of 50 years and 4 months at the time of accident and the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of future prospects and

(8 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] conventional heads in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the award is recomputed as under:- Annual

Income

after deduction of Income Tax as per last ITR Rs. 177740/- Multiplier to be applied 11 177740/- X 11 = 19,55,140/- Less 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.19,55,140/- - Rs.6,51,713 = Rs. 13,03,427/- Add 10 per cent towards future prospects Rs. 13,03,427/- + Rs. 1,30,342/- = Rs. 14,33,769/- Add towards conventional head Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 15,03,769/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 15,03,769/- - Rs.2,83,000/- = Rs. 12,20,769/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 12,20,769/- In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 12,20,769/-. Respondents are directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 12,20,769/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.2,00,000/- in the Joint Saving Bank Account of the claimants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellants-claimants on monthly basis. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms and the cross objections filed by the respondent-Corporation stands dismissed.

(9 of 9) [CMA-441/2012] All pending application(s) stand disposed of. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Copy of this judgment be placed in the connected file. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J HEENA GANDHI /6-7