| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 337 1965 SLD 337 (1965) 56 ITR 34 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 168 TO 169 OF 1964, OCTOBER 6, 1964
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. Rajendra Chaudhury, M. Rajagopal and K.R. Chaudhuri for the Appellant. C.K. Daphtary, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R.H. Dhebar and R.N. Sachthey for the
Respondent Administrator-General of West Bengal for the Estate of Raja P.N. Tagore
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 168 TO 169 OF 1964, OCTOBER 6, 1964
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. Rajendra Chaudhury, M. Rajagopal and K.R. Chaudhuri for the Appellant. C.K. Daphtary, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R.H. Dhebar and R.N. Sachthey for the
Respondent Administrator-General of West Bengal for the Estate of Raja P.N. Tagore
CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 168 TO 169 OF 1964, OCTOBER 6, 1964
v.
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 41
Section 160 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Representative assessee - Liability of - Assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 - One R died leaving an will by which certain legacies were left to specified persons and institutions residue being given to five sons - State Government appointed administrator - Administration to estate was not completed within accounting period - Whether since residue to be paid to sons legacies were to be paid first, income received by administrator could not be on behalf of five sons of deceased - Held, yes - Whether section 41 could be applied only whether administrator was entitled to received income on behalf of a person or persons while in instant case this condition was not fulfilled and so section 41 of 1922 Act would not be applicable - Held, yes - Whether it was to be held that administration received income on his behalf and not on behalf of five sons of deceased and he was to be annexed at maximum rate - Held, yes FACTS A Raja died leaving an elaborate will by which certain legacies were left to specified persons and institutions, the residue being given to five sons. There were numerous legacies which had to be paid before the residue could be ascertained. Probate of the will was granted to the said five sons but by an order the High Court appointed the Administrator-General of the state as administrator and ordered that letters of administration de bonis non of the property and credits of the deceased Raja with a copy of the will annexed thereto be granted and issued out. The Administrator-General submitted returns in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. He claimed that the income was specifically receivable on behalf of the said five sons of the deceased and their shares in the said income were definite and determinate. The ITO rejected the claim for the assessment year 1950-51 on the ground that "the Administrator-General was only an executor of the estate of the Raja and that the execution was not yet complete. Under the circum stances the question of the beneficiaries did not arise and the Administrator-General himself is assessable as…
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