LAWS(CAL)-2001-8-50

MULCHAND RAMPURIA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On August 24, 2001
MULCHAND RAMPURIA Appellant
V/S
INCOME-TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged a notice dated May 24, 1993, issued by the Income-tax Officer, respondent No. 1 herein, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), and the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act for the assessment year 1989-90 and all proceedings relating thereto and thereunder on the ground that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction have not been satisfied and as such notice and assessment proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are as follows : The writ petitioner is the sole executor to the estate of Sundar Devi Rampuria who died on October 28, 1975, leaving a registered will dated May 6, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the said deceased"). A probate of the said will has been granted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, apart from the status of the said executor to the estate of the said deceased, the petitioner is also regularly assessed separately with his own income in the status of an "individual".

(3.) The petitioner duly filed a return for the assessment year 1989-90 as sole executor. The petitioner has further contended before this court that the reasons recorded by respondent No. 1 annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this proceedings show that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment in respect of the share trading loss of Rs. 99,250 for the said year. It further appears from the said affidavit that the executor has no power to carry out any business and he has a right only to execute the estate in terms of the will. It has also been stated that the petitioner carried on a business in his personal capacity and not as an estate. The estate is not responsible for the loss incurred by the petitioner in respect of the business. Accordingly, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to set off the business loss from the income of the estate.