TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could invoke supervisory jurisdiction despite the statutory appeal provided against the penalty order. (ii) Whether the petitioner, as lessee, was bound by the notice issued for recovery of estate duty under the income-tax recovery provisions.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could invoke supervisory jurisdiction despite the statutory appeal provided against the penalty order.
Analysis: The order imposing penalty and directing payment was appealable under section 62(1)(a)(iv) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, against penalties imposed under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied for estate duty recovery. Since the petitioner did not avail of that remedy, the Court treated the writ/supervisory challenge as improper.
Conclusion: The challenge under article 227 was not entertained in view of the available statutory appeal.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, as lessee, was bound by the notice issued for recovery of estate duty under the income-tax recovery provisions.
Analysis: The Court held that "persons accountable" under section 2(12A) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, are not confined to those formally proceeded against in assessment. The petitioner's lessors were treated as accountable persons, and the petitioner, having payable rent out of which recovery was sought, was bound to comply with the notice issued under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 73 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to comply with the recovery notice and the penalty order was valid.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere and upheld the recovery action and penalty, leaving the estate duty enforcement against the petitioner undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an appeal against a penalty order made in estate duty recovery proceedings, supervisory jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised; further, a lessee paying rent to accountable persons may be bound by a lawful recovery notice issued for estate duty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
