Case: The Additional Income-Tax Officer,Salem Vs. E. Alfred

2. One Ebenezer died intestate on November 22, 1945, during his year of account which ended on March 31, 1946. He left behind him the respondent, E. Alfred, his son, and eight daughters. For the assessment year, 1946-47, the respondent was assessed under S. 248(2) of the Income-tax Act, after a notice was issued to him under S, 22(2), ibid. The assessment was completed on March 26, 1951, and a notice of demand was issued under S. 29 of the Act. The respondent appealed against the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but during the pendency of the appeal, a penalty of Rs. 250 was imposed upon him under S. 46(1) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer, as he had defaulted in payment of tax on the due date. After the appeal was disposed of with very minor modifications, a notice of demand was again issued to him to pay the tax on or before December 15, 1951. On his default, a second penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed upon him on March 8, 1952. The respondent then filed a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras challenging the imposition and levy of penalty imposed upon him. The High Court held in is favour, and quashed the two orders imposing penalty, but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court. This appeal was then filed.3. In reaching the conclusion that S. 46(1) of the Act did not apply to a legal representative, the learned Judges of the High Court held that a legal representative could not be said to be included within the words of that sub-section "when an assessee is in default in making a payment of income-tax" because of the scheme of the Act, particularly S. 29, where a distinction is made between "an assessee" and "other person". According to the learned Judges, a legal representative is assessed as an assessee under a fiction in S. 24B (2), and that fiction, comes to an end when the computation of the tax or, in other words, the assessment is made. The learned Judges drew a distinction between the three sub-sections of S. 24B, and pointed out that sub-s. (1) only created a liability on the legal representative for collection of tax but, did not refer to him for that purpose as an assessee and sub-s. (3) which did not concern itself with collection, did not refer to the legal representative as an assessee, and held that the fiction in sub-s. (2) was created for the limited purpose of assessment, and since that sub-section also did not concern itself with collection, the fiction could not be carried beyond assessment resulting in the determination of the tax. Thereafter, according to the High Court, the legal representative is not an assessee within the meaning of S. 29, but can only be brought under the words "other person", and inasmuch as Ss. 45 and 46 refer to "an assessee in default", the legal representative cannot be treated as such and no penalty can either be imposed upon him or recovered.

Reasoning:
6. In the present case, the matter fell to be governed by the second sub-section, because Ebenezer died before the end of his year of account. The service of the notice upon the respondent and his assessment, as if he were the assessee, were made under the second sub-section. By reason of this assessment the respondent became liable under the first sub-section to pay not of the estate of Ebenezer the tax assessed, to the extent to which Ebenezers estate was capable of meeting the charge but he himself was deemed to be the assessee.7. No doubt, the fiction made the respondent an assessee for the purpose of assessing the total income ofanswer to this question would determine the further application of the other sections of the Act. When a thing is deemed to be something else, it is to be treated as if it is that thing, though, in fact, it is not. The original assessee being dead before the notice, either general or-special, to him, he could not be treated as an assessee, and the process of the Act is, by the fiction, made available against a different person like a legal-representative who is fictionally deemed to be an assessee for purposes ofare not concerned in this case with the position of the legal representative under the third sub-section of S. 24B, and are not required to consider what his position would be, if he made a default in the payment of the tax. The fiction is enacted at least for the purpose of sub-sec (2), and it is to that sub-section that we are confined in this case. Nor can the fiction in that sub-section be limited by provisions of law for a totally different situation.8. Under S. 45, if a notice of demand is issued under S. 29 on an assessee and has not been complied with, the, assessee is deemed to be in default, and under s. 46 (1), if the assessee is in default, a penalty can be imposed. All these stages the respondent went through in this case.He was himself an assessee qua the assets and liability to tax, of Ebenezer; he was, therefore, an assessee in default and liable to the imposition of penalty for this default.The High Court as well as the learned counsel for the respondent (who pressed upon us the reasons of the High Court) referred to the words of S. 29 where in addition to an "assessee" liable to pay the tax occur the words "other person" liable, to pay such tax, and observed" that the respondent, would fall to be governed by the words . "other person" liable to pay such tax and not by the words "the assessee liable to pay such tax. The High Court reasoned, therefore, that the words "an assessee" in Ss. 45 and 46 in their application are limited to an assessee, who is assessed on his own behalf and not "other person", who is not an assessee. This distinction, it observed, must be borne in mind in interpreting the word "assessee" used in Ss. 45 and , and so construing, limited the word assessee" in those two sections to an assessee proper. The words "other person" cannot apply to a legal representative, if he is an "assessed" by fiction, and the fiction has to be worked out to is logical conclusion. If he fails within the word "assessee", as has been shown above, he does not fall within the words "other person", and it is not necessary to find in this case what persons are there meant to be included. In our opinion, the penalty could be imposed on the respondent as an assessee.