C DORAISWAMY Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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.