ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUITA

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 06-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the income cf the estate was 
receivable by him on behalf or the live sons of the testator. their sharK 
in the said income hcing definite and deterrninalc. 
His claim was rejectal 
by the assessing and appellate authorities. The High Court held that the 
Administrator-Gener.I when appointed by the Court was expressly covered 
by s. 41 as one o( the persons to whom that section applied, hut the 
shares of the sons not being determinate as long as the administration lasted, 
the proviso to s. 41 ( 1) was attracted, and tax was recoverable at the 
maximum rate. Appeal was filed by the Administrator-General before the 
Supreme Court. with a certificate under •· 66A(2) o( the Act. 
The appellant urged that the High Coun had wrongly held that the 
shares of the five sons were not determinate. 
On behalf of the Revenue 
it was contended that s. 41 did not apply at all because the appellant received 
the income not on behalf of the five sons but as an executor. 
HELD : The fact that the Administrator-General was mentioned io s. 41 
did not conclude the matter. There was another condition to be fullllled 
before that section could apply, namely, that the income had te> 
be 
received hy him on behalf of a per~on or person~. Jn the insta11t case the 
Administralor-Gcneral did not receive the income on behalf of the five sons. 
What the five sons "-'ere cntit1ed to was the rcsid'ue of the estate, and any 
savings that might be out of the income o( the eslatc would be received by 
them finally not as their income but as a part of rhe residue. The position 
of an Administrator-General appointed de bonis non was in no way different 
from that of an executor vis-a-vis the income he received from the 
estate. [656 A-8; 659 B-CJ. 
Y. M. Raghavalu Naidu v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Exeest 
Profilf Tax, Madras, 18 I.T.R. 787, R. v. Income-tax Special Commlssionu>, 
7 TC. 646, Lord Sude/ey v. Attorney-Genera/, [1897] A.C. l I. Marla 
Celeste Samaritan Society of the London Hospital v_ Commissitmer of 
Inland Revenue, 11 .T.C. 226 and Corbett v. Commissioner of Inland Reve-
11116, 21 T.C. 449, relied on. 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL V. C.I.T. (Sikrf J.) . 
651 
A 
Asit Kumar Ghose v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, We.tt 
Bengal, 22 I.T.R. 177 and Birendra Kumar Dutta v. C.I.T. Calcutta, (1961) 
42 I.T.R. 661 referredto. 
In re Cunliffe-Owen Mountain v. Inland Revenue Commissioner, (15153) 
I Ch. 545, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 168-
B 
169 of. 1964. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 5, 
1961, of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 
116 of 1957. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, M. Raja-
C 
gopal and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 168 
of 1964). 
K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appel-
lant (in C.A. No. 169 of 1964). 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. 
D 
Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent (in C.A. Nos. 
168-169 of 1964). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri J. These are two appeals by certificates under s. 66A(2) 
of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, against the judgment of 
E 
the High Court at Calcutta, answering two question
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.