BALACHANDRA CHENGAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, whose income was assessed by the income-tax authorities, owed a sum of Rs. 18,783.75 P. towards the arrears of tax, and the Parupathegar of the Nad Office, Coorg, who is respondent No. 3, called upon him on April 14, 1965, to pay up the arrears, and intimated him that, in default, his landed property would be forwarded to the concerned revenue authority a certificate under section 46 (2) of the INdian INcome-tax Act, 1922.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges this demand and the ground on which the challenge rests is that, as early as on September 11, 1958, a promissory note for Rs. 1,00,000 executed by the petitioner's debtors had been delivered to the Income-tax Officer for collection and appropriation towards the arrears of the tax due from him, and that the neglect on the part of the Income-tax Officer to make the collection of the debt, exonerated the petitioner from his liability to pay the arrears of tax.

(3.) IT is plain that, although under section 46 (5A) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer had the power to call upon the debtor of the petitioner to make the payment of a debt due to the petitioner towards the petitioner's arrears of income-tax, the Income-tax Officer did not become the agent of the petitioner for the recovery or collection of the debt due to him. Section 46 (5A) is an enabling section, which creates a machinery for the recovery of the income-tax arrears from a person who is indebted to the assessee. Paragraph 2 of that sub-section makes it clear that the Income-tax Officer may abandon the endeavour to recover the arrears in that way at his choice and the last paragraph of that sub-section provides that, when a person, who is called upon by the Income-tax Officer to pay a debt of the assessee, repudiates the debt, the Income-tax Officer can do nothing further in that matter.