Income-tax recovery from joint family assets upheld where estimated assessment was not treated as an avyavaharika debt.

A statutory income-tax liability assessed on a father may be recovered against joint family property, and the suit challenging that recovery was not premature merely because only a recovery certificate had issued. The court reasoned that once certificate proceedings begin, a threatened sale of family assets is enough to maintain a challenge without waiting for an actual sale. It also held that arrears of income-tax, even when assessed on an estimate, are not an avyavaharika debt unless moral turpitude or a penal exaction is shown. The sons therefore remained liable under the doctrine of pious obligation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit questioning the liability of joint family properties to be proceeded against for recovery of income-tax assessed on the father was premature merely because only a recovery certificate had been issued. (ii) Whether arrears of income-tax assessed on the father on an estimated basis could be treated as an avyavaharika debt so as to escape the sons' liability under the doctrine of pious obligation.

Issue (i): Whether a suit questioning the liability of joint family properties to be proceeded against for recovery of income-tax assessed on the father was premature merely because only a recovery certificate had been issued.

Analysis: Once a certificate under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act is issued, the Collector proceeds to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and may exercise powers akin to those of a civil court in execution. The apprehension that the family properties, including the sons' shares, might be sold was sufficient to maintain the suit. A party need not wait until a sale date is fixed or sale is actually held before challenging liability.

Conclusion: The suit was not premature.

Issue (ii): Whether arrears of income-tax assessed on the father on an estimated basis could be treated as an avyavaharika debt so as to escape the sons' liability under the doctrine of pious obligation.

Analysis: The liability arose from a statutory tax on profits and not from any fine or penalty for misconduct. An estimated assessment, even if made because accounts were not produced or income was concealed, does not by itself establish moral turpitude or make the debt repugnant to good morals. The challenge that the assessed income exceeded the true income was not proved. The obligation to pay income-tax was therefore not of the kind exempted as avyavaharika.

Conclusion: The arrears of income-tax were not an avyavaharika debt, and the sons remained liable under the doctrine of pious obligation.

Final Conclusion: The family properties could be proceeded against for recovery of the father's income-tax liability, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory income-tax liability assessed on the father, even on estimate, is not an avyavaharika debt unless it is shown to involve moral turpitude or a penal exaction; accordingly, the sons cannot resist recovery from joint family assets on that ground.

---