The appellant, on receipt of the numberice, paid the rent for the months of December, 1961 and January 1962 aggregating to Rs.
3 and 4 in their capacity as executors of the Will dated 20th December, 1957 said to have been made by the deceased prior to his death.
No further payment of 5 502 SCI/77 rent was thereafter made by the appellant either to the Assistant Controller or to the lessors.
3 and 4 as accountable persons and after hearing them, madean order dated 23rd September, 1960 assessing the principal value of the estate of the deceased and determin ing a sum of Rs.
3 and 4 Claiming respectively to be the son and daughter of the deceased delivered to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty an account in form ED 1 of the properties in respect of which, according to them, estate duty was payable on the death of the deceased.
One of the immovable properties left by the deceased, namely, the building situate at No.
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the proceedings adopted by the Assistant Controller under section 73 5 or the Estate Duty Act, 1953 read with s. 46 5A of the Act of 1922 for recovery of the amount of estate duty from the appellant as also the legality of the Order dated 25th March 1964 impos ing penalty of Rs.
35,000/ had been paid by the appellant to the lessors in companytravention of the numberice dated 9th January, 1962 issued against him and imposing a penalty of Rs.
3,000/ on or before 6th April, 1964.
2,800/ paid by him in respect of rent for the months of December 1961 and January 1962 on the ground that this payment had been made by him under a bona fide mistake of law.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 1st December 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
The High Court, by a judgment dated 1st December, 1969, rejected the writ petition and hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.
It appears that the Assistant Controller was number able to recover the amount of estate duty from re spondents Nos.
1,40,090.20 as also to pay money which may subsequently become due from you to them or which you may subsequently hold for or on account of them upto the amount of arrears still remaining unpaid, forthwith on the money becoming due or being held by you as aforesaid, as such payment is required to meet the amount duo by the accountable person in respect of arrears of estate duty.
10,000/ should number be levied for the default companymitted by him.
The appellant acting on this letter of the lessors attorneys.
The lessors, by their attorneys letter dated 24th February, 1962, however, companytended that the numberice issued by the Assistant Controller against the appellant was ineffec tual, since the lessors had number been assessed to estate duty by the Assistant Controller as accountable persons and the Assistant Controller was, therefore, number companypetent to require the appellant to pay to him the amount of rent which was due from the appellant to the lessors and moreover, the numberice required the appellant to pay only such amount as was due from the appellant to respondents Nos.
3 and 4 as ac companyntable persons and since the amount of rent was due from the appellant to the lessors and number to respondents Nos.
3,000/ under section 73, subsection 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 read with section 46 1 of the Act of 1922 and requiring the appellant to pay up the amounts of Rs.
3,000/ on the appellant.
3 and 4, the appellant was number liable to pay the amount of rent in respect of the leased premises to the Assistant Controller.
Since the appellant did number pay any rent to the Assistant Controller for the period subsequent to January 1962 in defiance of the numberice dated 9th January, 1962, the Assistant Controller issued a numberice dated 5th March, 1964 to the appellant requiring him to show cause why penalty in the sum of Rs.
2,800/ to the Assistant Controller and informed the lessors about the same.
The lease given to the appellant by these nine persons, who may for the sake of companyvenience be hereinafter referred to as the lessors, was under a registered deed dated 5th March, 1960 and it was a lease for a period of thirty one years with effect from 1st March, 1960 carrying rent at the rate of Rs.
According to the appellant, it had been let out to him by nine persons who were the nephews and nieces of the deceased and who claimed to be the heirs of the deceased on the basis that the de ceased died without making any Will and did number leave any widow or son or daughter surviving him.
3 and 4, since most of the estate of the deceased companysisted of immovable properties which wore let out to different tenants and according to respondents Nos.
1,40,090.20 as the amount payable as estate duty.
able persons to the estate of late Rai Bhupati Nath Deb and requiring him to pay forth with any amount due from you to or, held by you, for, or on account of the said estate of Bhupati Nath Deb Bahadur upto the amount of Rs.
The appellant also called upon the Assistant Controller to refund the sum of Rs.
1,400/ per month.
Since the leased premises that is how we propose to describe the building leased to the appellant by the les sors admittedly belonged to the estate of the deceased, the rent payable by the appellant was a fortjori an amount which in law belonged to the estate and hence the Assistant Con troller issued a numberice dated 9th January, 1962 to the appellant under section 73, sub section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 read with section 46, sub section 5A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1922 pointing out that a sum of Rs.
3 and 4 and the appellant had numberconcern or companynection with these account able persons number was any amount due from him to them and hence the numberice dated 9th January 1962 was misconceived.
1,40,090.20 is due from Shri Tulsi Charan Deb and others on account of estate duty as account.
The account was filed by respond ents Nos.
This explanation furnished by the appellant was found unacceptable and the Assistant Control ler passed an order dated 25th March, 1964 holding that rent for the months companymencing from March 1962 and ending with March 1964 aggregating to Rs.
35,000/ and Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 and 4, rent was number being paid to them by the tenants.
The Assistant Controller issued numberice under section 58,.
13, India Exchange Place CalcUtta was in the possession of the appellant.
sub section 2 to respond ents Nos.
The appellant addressed a letter dated 13th March, 1964 pointing out that the accountable persons mentioned in the numberice dated 9th January, 1962 were Shri TuIsi Chandra and others, that is, respondents Nos.
It was stated in the numberice that any payment made by the appellant in companypliance with the request companytained in the numberice would in law be deemed to have been made under the authority of the accountable person and the receipt of the Assistant Controller will companystitute a good and sufficient discharge of his liability to the person to the extent of the amount referred to in the receipt.
Respondents Nos.
did number pay any further rent to the Assistant Controller but paid rent for the months from February to May 1962 to the lessors.
1274 of 1974 .
783 of 1972 .
C. Sharma and P.L. Juneja, for the respondent.
One Raj Bhupati Nath Dev Bahadur died on 23rd September, 1959 leaving companysiderable movable and immovable properties which included inter alia a building situate at No.
C. Majumdar and Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, for the appellant.
A brief narration of the facts giving rise to the appeal would be sufficient to explain the back ground against which the question arises for determination in the appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question of law as to the scope of granishee proceed ing under section 73, sub section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 read with section 46 5A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
13, India Exchange Place, Calcutta.
