Sonu Lal vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Agarwala, J.—The Commissioner of Income Tax was called upon by this Court to state a case on the following question: Whether the assessment made in this case in the names of Gajo Ram and Basant Ram, who are dead, is valid. The findings of fact of the Commissioner are that the assess, a Hindu undivided family, carry on a family business under the name and style of Gajo Ram Basant Ram. Gajo Ram and Basant Ram have been dead for some years, but the business is and always has been carried on in their names. The notices required under the Act were issued in the trading name of the family, i.e. Gajo Ram Basant Ram, and were served on the karta of the family. They were accepted by him and he appeared in the proceedings before the Income Tax Officer and filed a return. After the assessment had been made, he appealed to the Assistant Commissioner objecting to the assessment on the ground that the demand notices had been served in the names of Gajo Ram Basant Ram who were dead and challenged the assessment on that ground.

Learned Counsel for the assessee in this Court referred to Section 63, Income Tax Act, which provides that notices under the Act may be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court and, in the case of a Hindu undivided family, may be addressed to any adult member of the family. It is contended that the notices were not addressed to an adult member of the family but to two dead members of the family. The argument is fallacious. The family, in its trading capacity, is known as Gajo Ram Basant Ram and the notices were addressed to the family in the name by which it has chosen to be known. It would have been a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the section to address them to an adult member of the family, but they were in fact addressed to the family itself, they were accepted as notices to the family and the karta on behalf of the family tiled a return of the family''s income. There has been no defect in procedure either in substance or in form.

I would, therefore, answer the question submitted to us in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income tax is entitled to his costs: hearing fee Rs. 100.

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.

I agree.