1957 (11) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The facts briefly are as follows: In May, 1950, the petitioner with his brother field a suit in the High Court being Suit No. 1108 of 1940 in the original side for partition, accounts, cancellation of the deed of arpannama and other reliefs. In that suit the receivers were appointed to take charge of the properties and business of the parties to the suit. The receivers also have been assessed to Income-tax in respect of the estate. The suit was ultimately compromised by a consent decree on the 30th August, 1944. But the receivers were discharged on the 8th July, 1946. The certificates which are now being challenged by the petitioner relate to the assessment year 1942-43. Now the facts about these assessment are that they were comple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Four of the brothers of the petitioner duly paid their respective shares of the tax. It is only the petitioner who did not pay. He is now taking the legal point that he was not the assessee. The facts that the challans were separately made, that the names of the certificate debtors were substituted replacing the receivers and inserting the names of the five brothers are facts not disputed by the applicant. It is necessary to refer both to the Public Demands Recovery Act and the Income-tax Act in this connection though the reference need only be very brief. Under section 3(1) of the Public Demands Recovery Act "certificate debtor" means the person named as debtor in a certificate filed under this Act, and includes any person whose name....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re in this case the applicant has no merit to support him. In fact, the agreement to split up the assessment into five equal shares is not disputed. In fact, it appears it was acted upon by four of the applicant's brothers. The fact is not disputed also that there was notice of demand under separate challans. The argument on behalf of the applicant that it is necessary to be an assessee before Income-tax could be realised from a person has many limitations. The very word "assessee" has got its meaning in the context of the Act. Sub-section(2) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act defining "assessee" says that it means a person by whom Income-tax or any other sum of money is payable under this Act and includes every person in respect of ....