COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BIHAR AND ORISSA vs. MANAGER, COURT OF WARDS ESTATE, BETTIAH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1172/1965Supreme Court[1967] 2 S.C.R. 74824 February 1967Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.M. SHELAT, G.K. MITTER OF INCOME3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee is the Manager, Court of Wards Estate, Bettiah. The revenue is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa. The assessment year in question is 1956-57, with the accounting year being the financial year 1955-56. The order under challenge is the judgment of the Patna High Court, which set aside an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the Manager. The procedural history involves a title suit filed by Suresh Nandan Sinha claiming to be the heir of the deceased Maharani Janki Kuer, who was the last holder of the Bettiah Estate. The State of Bihar claimed the estate vested in it by escheat. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal held that assessment could be made on the Manager as the estate had not definitively vested in the State due to pending litigation. The High Court, however, held that income-tax authorities could not impose tax while the title suit was pending.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the proceedings should be made final after the disposal of the litigation concerning the heirship of the Bettiah Estate. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. The reasoning was that it was not possible to definitively hold that the estate had escheated to the State of Bihar while the litigation was ongoing. The Court stated that in case of escheat, there could be no assessment to income-tax. The position would be clarified after the appeal by Suresh Nandan Sinha was disposed of. The High Court could call for a supplementary statement of case if necessary. The question of whether the estate had escheated to the State of Bihar was left open. The operative direction was to finalize proceedings after the litigation's disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, an assessment could be made upon the Manager of the Court of Wards, Bettiah Estate, in respect of the income from the Bettiah Estate, pursuant to Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. If the assessment could be made on the Manager, was it chargeable to tax at maximum rates under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that since a title suit regarding heirship was pending and the State of Bihar claimed the estate by escheat, the income-tax authorities could not validly impose a tax without deciding the escheat claim. The assessee also contended that even if an assessment was made, the income should not be taxed at the maximum rate under Section 41(1). Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal were correct in holding that an assessment could be made on the Manager as the estate had not definitively vested in the State by escheat due to the pending litigation. They also held that the income was taxable at the maximum rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1),Section 41(1),Section 66-A(2),Section 261

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BIHAR AND ORISSA A v. MANAGER, COURT OF WARDS ESTATE, BETI'IAH February 24, J 967 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. M. SIIELAT AND 0. K. MITTER, JJ.] Practice and Procedure-Tax liabi/iry-LiabiUty dependent on OIU- come of litigation-Assessment made while title suit was pending-Hlgli Court setting aside assessment-Propriety of-Procedure to bt foUowtd. B During the pendency of a s1•it by a penon claiming lb be the heir of the Bettiah estate which was in the possession of the Manager, Court C of Wards, the Income Tax Officer made an assessment on the Manager.

Jn those proceedings the State of Bihar and the Manager claimed that the estate had ves!ed in the State by escheat and therefore the income was not liable to tax.

The Jncome4ax Officer. the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that as the litigation was pendin& ·: could not be soid of the estate that the same had vested in the Stale by e;cheat. The High Court on relcrcnce held that the income tax authorities could not impose the tax.

Setting aside the judgment of the D High C<iurt this Court in appeal. HELD : The proceedings should be made final after the disposal of t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →