CHATURBHUJ Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, the Tax Recovery Officer, Nagpur, by order of attachment dated October 20, 1982, attached Plot No. 212 and the house standing thereon bearing Corporation house Nos. 208 and 208 -A in Ward No. 23, Lakadganj, Nagpur, owned by the petitioner. The attachment was stated to have been made in pursuance of some recovery said to be outstanding against the late Shri Rajabhai Premji, the father of petitioner No. 1. On an enquiry being made by the petitioners about the details of the recovery, it was learnt that the Income -tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Bhuj (State of Gujarat), has sent revenue recovery certificates to the Tax Recovery Officer, Jamnagar, and he, in turn, forwarded the same to respondent No. 1, the Tax Recovery Officer, Nagpur. The recovery pertained to income -tax dues including interest amounting to Rs. 1,11,428 for the assessment year 1969 -70, Rs. 3,824 for the assessment year 1970 -71 and wealth -tax dues of Rs. 12,141 for the assessment year 1969 -70, all arising out of respective assessments made on the assessee, the late Rajabhai Premji, the father of petitioner No. 1, by the Income -tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Bhuj. A copy of the order for the assessment year 1969 -70 is filed on record. The assessee is described as the late Shri Rajabhai Premji (decd.), by legal representative, Purshottam Rajabhai.

(2.) BY an amendment, the petitioners further contend that by two more orders of attachment, both dated October 10, 1985, respondent No. 1 the Tax Recovery Officer, Nagpur, attached N. I. T. Plot No. 224 -A and Plot No. 224 -B situated at Lakadganj, Nagpur. Even this attachment is stated to be for recovery of the dues mentioned above against the late Shri Rajabhai Premji. All these orders of attachment are challenged in this petition.

(3.) ON the basis of the affidavits filed by Smt. Rajibai, in which she stated that her deceased husband and left Rs. 94,253 in cash, the Income -tax Officer felt that the income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment made in respect of the deceased for the year 1969 -70. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Income -tax Act was issued to Purshottam, the son of the deceased. No other legal heir was noticed though it is incumbent upon the Income -tax Officer to do so. In response to the notice, a 'Nil' return was filed by Purshottam. The Income -tax Officer, Bhuj, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,44,850 and raised a demand for Rs. 1,19,000. It seems that petitioner No. 1 challenged this order of assessment in appeal and raised various contentions including non -issuance of notice to the other legal heirs. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jamnagar, rejected the contention so raised, but drastically reduced the income determined by the Income -tax Officer, Bhuj. The Department went in appeal and the Tribunal at Ahmedabad, reversed the order of the appellate authority and confirmed the order passed by the Income -tax Officer, Bhuj. The recovery proceedings hence came to be commenced. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended and emphatically so that the Income -tax Officer, Bhuj, should have served notices on all the legal representatives before resorting to assess the escaped income of the deceased, Rajabhai Premji. It was further contended that the Department well knew the legal representatives since the Department had decided the estate duty case of the deceased Rajabhai, the return for which was filed by petitioner No. 1 along with Purshottam. Not only that, the basis for assessment of the alleged escaped income as assessed could not be recovered by attaching the property of the petitioners and selling them.