TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent in his proceedings GI. No. R. 2399 dated December 13, 1988, and to quash the same. Both the learned advocates for the petitioners and also the respondents have submitted that common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases and that, therefore, both the writ petitions may be heard together and a common order may be passed. In both the writ petitions, the partnership firms, Vedachala Mudaliar and Co., at Chingelput and at Tindivaman, were constituted in the year 1972 with effect from April 1, 1972. The firms were reconstituted on April 1, 1985. Prior to that, the firms were reconstituted with effect from March 20, 1981, in which one M. Rajeswari Vedachalam was one of the partners, who died on March 19, 1981. She ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mohan, and a minor Murali. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (2), the first respondent herein, had passed an assessment order in respect of the late Smt. Rajeswari Vedachalam, under section 58(4) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, wherein it is stated that the interest of the deceased in the various partnership firms in which she was a partner was included. As Rajeswari Vedachalam succeeded to the interest of her husband in M. Vedachala Mudaliar and Co., the amount available in the partnership business was added to the principal estate and the first respondent determined the total principal value of the estate and arrived at approximately Rs. 20,00,000 and estate duty thereon at Rs. 6,63,600. As there was no response from the accountabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners preferred the present writ petitions. The respondents have not chosen to file any counter. I heard the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and also the respondents. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. Ramachandran has submitted that the impugned notice dated December 13, 1988, is illegal, inoperative and unsustainable under law. He has submitted that the petitioners' partnership firm is not an accountable person and that, therefore, the partnership firm, as such, is not liable to pay the amount demanded by the first respondent in the impugned notice dated December 13, 1988. He has further urged that Rajeswari Vedachalam had bequeathed her properties in the partnership firm as per th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm alone is liable for attachment. But, the petitioners have submitted that there is no such estate of the late Rajeswari Vedachalam, available in the hands of the partnership firm. As such, the attachment proceedings taken by the respondents is not sustainable. But, however, the advocate for the respondents urged that the proceedings taken by the respondents are proper, in view of the provisions of section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (the old Act) which reads as follows : "46. Mode and time of recovery.---(1) When an assessee is in default in making a payment of income-tax, the Income-tax Officer may in his discretion direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, a sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat amount." A careful reading of section 46(5A) of the Act would definitely suggest what is the amount liable for attachment. It is well defined that : "Where a person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent objects to it on the ground that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee, then, nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to require such person to pay any such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, to the Income-tax Officer." As such, unless or otherwise, the petitioners hold the estate of the deceased, they are not liable to pay the amount demanded by the respondents. The learned advocate for the respondents also r....