PREM NARAIN AGARWAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for decision upon this petition is whether the petitioners, appointed by the court as joint receivers upon the decease of the previous receiver, can be assessed in respect of income chargeable for an assessment year prior to their appointment.

(2.) ONCE upon a time, the John family were the exclusive owners of three spinning mills and one roller flour mill, all situated at Agra, and popularly known as the John Mills of Agra. During the passage of time, with the vicissitude of fortune, the exclusive ownership of the John family gave way to co-ownership with a number of others. In 1949, one Seth Loon Karan Sethiya filed a suit for money in the court of the Civil Judge, Agra, against the co-owners. In this suit, the court appointed two receivers over the mills for the purpose of protecting and preserving them. To their powers was subsequently added the power of realising rent and income accuring from the property. Pursuant to directions issued by the court, the several mills were given out on lease on payment by the lessees of specific sums as lease money by the month. The joint receivers were replaced about the year 1955 by a single receiver, Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal and upon his death in 1958, Rameshwar Nath Agarwal was appointed to fill the office. This receiver continued until his death on April 17, 1963. By an order dated May 1, 1963, the court at Agra appointed the petitioners as joint receivers, and it is admitted that they assumed charge as receivers on being so appointed.

(3.) THE petitioners were then required by the respondent to file returns in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 onwards but the petitioners demurred on the ground that they were not liable to file any returns for the period prior to their appointment as receivers. THE respondent pressed for the returns, taking his stand on the contents of the judgment to Manchanda J. which he understood as determining that the petitioners were liable to assessement as successors of the earlier receiver. THEreupon the petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition against the notices dated February 14, 1964, and the consequential proceedings.