Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 1217 1980 SLD 1217 (1980) 126 ITR 748
Calcutta High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 203 OF 1975 FEBRUARY 16, 1978
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ.
R.N. Bajaria and Dilip for the Applicant. S. Sen and Ajit Sengupta for the
Respondent

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

2//16//1978

Law:

Section:

Section 168 read with section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Executors - Assessment years 1963-64 & 1964-65 - Whether in view of nature of duties required to be performed by administrator pendente lite appointed under section 247 of 1925 Act and in view of circumstances under which administrator pendente lite can be made, administrator pendente lite is not an administrator as contemplated in explanation to section 168, and as such section 168 does not apply - Held, yes - Whether where testator bequathed all his properties equally to his wife and six sons, pendency of adjudication on question of validity of will would not make shares of legatees indefinite or inascertainable and, therefore, assessment could not be made under section 164 - Held, yes FACTS The deceased left a will bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties equally to his wife 'M' and to his six sons. His wife was to have life interest and after her death, her share would be taken equally by his sons or their male heirs. While no executor was appointed under the will, the legatees applied for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the willed properties during the pendency of the probate proceedings one of the daughters of the testator filed a caveat challenging the will. Pending the suit, the High Court appointed 'M' as administratix pendente lite for the properties in question. For the relevant assessment years 'M' furnished returns as administratix pendente lite showing the status as individual, and claimed that the shares of the legatees being definite, the property income should be allocated amongst the seven beneficiaries under the will, by making assessment under section 161 but not under section 168. The ITO, however, held that since the dispute about the will was pending, the number of legatees and the share of each legatee remained indeterminate and so the question of allocation of income amongst the seven beneficiaries did not arise at all and the income from the estate should be assessed in the hands of the administratix under section 168. He was also of the view that the allocation of property…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492