HIRALUXMI PANDIT Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff against the judgment of the Court below dismissing her suit for a declaration that the property in suit is her property and as such cannot be sold in Certificate Case No. 29 O. D. of 1948-49 or in any other certificate case for recovery of the income-tax assessed on late Vijoy Shankar Tuthabhai Pandit for the year 1947-48, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling the property in question.

(2.) The plaintiff is the widow of late Vijoy Shankar Juthabhai Pandit. The said Vijoy Shankar Juthabhai Pandit has taken settlement of lands mentioned in schedule A to the plaint on 20-11-1933 from the District Board of Manbhum on an annual rental of Rs. 37-13-0. Out of this land, he had settled, by a registered deed of lease, dated 1-12-1941, an area of 8 kathas 8 chataks with the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited on a monthly rental of Rs. 25. On 4-9-1945, he made a gift, as per registered deed, of all the properties which he had taken, in lease from the District Board in favour of the plaintiff, his wife. The plaintiff's case is that she accepted the gift and came in possession of the gifted property, she realised rent from the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company from month to month, got her name mutated in the office of the District Board, paid rent to the said District Board and had also settled a portion of the land with one S. K. Thacker of Dhanbad on a monthly rental of Rs. 100.

(3.) Vijoy Shankar Juthabhai Pandit had been assessed by the Income-tax department with income tax to the extent of Rs. 51,295-3-0 for the year 1947-48. He had paid a portion of this income-tax and, before he could pay the balance, Rs. 39,572- 13-0, he died on 13-8-1948. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer sent a certificate, under Section 46(2), Income-tax Act, to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, for realising this amount of Rs. 39,572-13-0 as land revenue, and Certificate Case No. 29 O. D. of 1948-49 was started. The certificate mentioned the Income-tax Officer as the certificate-bolder. This certificate case was started on 30-3-1949, after Vijoy Shankar Juthabhai Pandit had died. Later on, his son, Shew Kumar Juthabhai Pandit, was substituted in his place on 13-9-1949. On 17-1-1950, however, the plaintiff came to know that the land in suit had been put up for sale in the aforesaid certificate case. She filed an application, under Section 21, Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (4 of 1914), claiming the property as her own and alleging that it was not liable to attachment and sale. This application, however, was summarily rejected under the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the said Act, as the Certificate Officer considered that the claim was designedly and unnecessarily delayed. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed the suit alleging that the certificate proceeding was illegal, without jurisdiction and void inasmuch as the certificate proceeding was taken after the death of the assesses against the assessee. She further alleged that the property was her exclusive property and was not liable to attachment and sale for realization of the dues from Vijoy Shankar Juthabhai Pandit.