IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE S" DAY OF MARCH, 2010'o PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MHHJUNATH % AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE E V. NAGAHATHNH'Hl x.T.A.No.24b3/2o05_'~F BETWEEN: P.V Poonnen (Decd.)W$y_ZfFD Stephen Poonnen, 39 yearsgjl _ No.3, Villa Delmar, 3*" "gV='«a. Sarjapur,Road}~T Woo"; ?'voVo Bangalorej3§f_ "'4 Kefi"~' jl .. APPELLANT (By AdHoaateTSrl}$.Parthasarathi) AND: The;Beput§=CommiSSioner of "r_ Inoomeétax, Spegial Range~2, .V H Bangalore. 3 Pfesently income Tax Officer, *ward41o(2)j.LIc Building, Safipige*Road, Malleswaram, Bahgalore43. .. RESPONDENT Vflo;%(By~hdvocate Sri.M.V Seshachala) This ITA is fiiled under Sec.260A of the Income utTax Act,196l to allow the appeal and set aside the E orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA Nos.57 & 58/Bang/1997 dated 6.9.2004. This Appeal is coming on for finala hearing this day, MANJUNATH J. delivered the following;"x J U D G M E N T *1 "--"="¥ ~ The assessee has come' up gin Vthisppappealg challenging' the legality _and noorreotness: of ltne order passed by the Income fax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in.i¢A Ne.S7;;iS8/Bane/1997 dated 6.9.2004. 2. Facts
leading to this case are as hereunder:
Assessee as an indifiidual filed return of income
for the _assessmenti year 1985~86 and 1986~87. At
E the’ tide? o£_ scrntiny it was noticed that the
K , .n \’:¥xw’ $£w%
assessee being the Manager of estate is liable to
Vi pay caPit31 gains on the spontaneous growth trees
” ifseia by him on behalf of the owner of the estate
4iMariamha Kurien. Being aggrieved by the same,
iassessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that the
assessee cannot be assessed to tax. VdKBein9
aggrieved by the divergent findings, revende filed
an appeal before the tribunal. Trihnnal’fe§ersinggg
the findings of the Commissioner ‘of wlncofie _Taxh
(Appeals), restored the_ ordef= passed thy <the
assessing officer. Being aggriefied"hy the same,
present appeal is filed.fl
3. Though the appeal is adggtted to consider the
substantialӢuestions,of_lafigffamed in the appeal,
counsel w£0¥X thB–‘Pa#tiesWfisubmitted that the
followingfi snbstantlalV_gnestion arises for our
consideration is as hereunder:
p_ “Whethe; the sale proceeds from the sale of
d.timbet from the estate of Mariamma Kurian can
A’,be. 2 taxed, in the hands of the
*.appellantXassessee or in the hands of Mariamma
‘Kurian?¥jf
u”3§,dn$he facts are not in dispute to the following
extentr’ That the assessee was a power of attorney
l holder of Mariamma Kurian and. he is none other
fly
% 1
assessment year.
but an agent cannot be assessed to tax in respect
of the income received by a Principal. This legal
position is forgotten both by the rassessing
officer as well as by the tribunal. fifiven if the
Will is executed and if the assessee is made as an
executor, even under such circumstances’ for, the
relevant assessment year tax cannot be assessed in
the name of the assessee as the Will would come
into effect
only flfihég death of Mariamma
Kurian andf iii the ‘estate= is bequeathed to
different persons and the legatee under the Will
would be liable to,pav tax under any circumstances
assessee_ can’ bé- held” liable to pay the tax
‘ §{/5% Q3,
provided he isFan esecutor under the Will andwif
Mariamfia Kurian was not alive during the relevant
These facts are not considered
by “‘theV__v”tVr’£Lbunal. The tribunal as well as the
“in assessing officer have proceeded. as if the sale
fbfproceeds from the sale of timber has been received
f= hi the assessee as an owner of the Estate.
(£7;/..
wfi g
gig; (cl ‘3’
‘K;
Therefore, considering the facts of this case, we
have to answer the question of law against the
revenue and in favour of the assessee.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allofieej n=’
in
%
‘
R/i5′(‘3″3’10 ‘ j_