ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUITA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 168/1964Supreme Court[1965] 1 S.C.R. 65006 October 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Administrator-General of West Bengal was appointed administrator de bonis non of the estate of Raja Profulla Nath Tagore by the High Court in 1948. The testator died in 1938, leaving a will that stipulated legacies to be paid within 15 years, with the residue going to his five sons thereafter. For assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, the Administrator-General claimed that income from the estate should be assessed under Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it was receivable by him on behalf of the five sons, whose shares were allegedly definite and determinable. The assessing and appellate authorities rejected this claim. The High Court held that while the Administrator-General was covered by Section 41, the sons' shares were not determinate during the administration period, attracting the proviso to Section 41(1) and tax at the maximum rate. The Administrator-General appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not applicable in this case. While the Administrator-General was expressly mentioned in Section 41, a crucial condition was that the income must be received by him on behalf of a person or persons. The Court found that the Administrator-General did not receive the income on behalf of the five sons. The sons were entitled to the residue of the estate, and any savings from the income would be received by them as part of the residue, not as their income during the administration period. The Court reasoned that the position of an Administrator-General appointed de bonis non is no different from that of an executor concerning the income received from the estate. The income was the property of the executors (or Administrator-General acting as such) and applicable for the purposes of administration, not received on behalf of the residuary legatees until the residue was ascertained. Therefore, the assessment could not be made under Section 41. The Court answered both questions in the affirmative, meaning the assessments were not in accordance with law and the assessment at the maximum rate was not legal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessments on the Administrator-General of West Bengal as an individual, rather than representing the shares of the beneficiaries under the Will of the late Raja P. N. Tagore separately, were in accordance with law, pursuant to Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessment of the Administrator-General at the maximum rate was legal? Assessee's Contention: The appellant (Administrator-General) argued that the High Court erred in holding that the shares of the five sons were not determinate. The appellant contended that the income was receivable on behalf of the sons and their shares were definite and determinable, thus Section 41 should apply. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that Section 41 did not apply at all because the appellant received the income not on behalf of the five sons but in his capacity as an executor. The Revenue argued that the beneficiaries' shares were not ascertainable until the administration was complete.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41,Section 66A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

650 ADMINISfRA TOR-GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUITA October 6, 1964 (K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M .. SIKRI JJ.)

Indian Jnco1ne·tn:c Acr, 1922, s. 41-Adniinistrator-General appoint~ 1d ad1nini.straror de boois non of property paising under will-Residue of property to go to testator's sons after paymenl of varfr,i4S legac;es-Adtnl- nlstrator-General whether receives income of estate on behalf of the testaJ<ff1 sons during period of admi11is1rarion-Wliether asJeS.table under s. 41 .. T died in 1938. According to his will certain legacies were to be paid out of his estate during a period of fifteen years after his death, the eswe being managed by executors and trustees during that period; and the residue thereafter was to go to his five sons.

Prob~ite \\'as g1anted to the five sons on August 24, 1938, but by an Order da.ed !>lay 10, 1948, the High Court appointed the Administrator-General of West Bengal ., Administra- tor de bonis non of the property.

In inccmc-lax proceedings relating to the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 the Administra1or-General- appellant herein----claimed th<il assessment should be made under s. 41 of the

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 41

All 154 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →