COURT RECEIVER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE executor under the will, who also was a 2nd plaintiff to the suit, and Mariambai, wife of the testator and also the executrix and trustee under the will, who was 3rd defendant to the suit, were appointed private receivers. Subsequently, by an order of this court dated June 30, 1950, the joint receivers were discharged and in their stead a court receiver was appointed as a receiver of the estate.

(2.) THE Income -tax Officer issued notices for assessment of the income earned by the estate, and the returns for the aforesaid three assessment years were filed by the joint private receivers. Return for the assessment year 1948 -49 was filed by the joint receivers on January 19, 1950 of assessment year 1949 -50 on February 3, 1950, and of assessment year 1950 -51 on April 24, 1952 (return is dated August 30,1951). After the returns were received in the office, the Income -tax Officer however issued notice under sections 23(2) and 23(3) of the Act to the court receiver. In pursuance of this notice, the court receiver appeared before the Income -tax Officer. Neither before the Income -tax Officer nor before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the court receiver had raised any objection as to the competence of the Income -tax Officer to assess the income in the hands of the court receiver. However, when the matter came before the Tribunal, the court receiver raised an objection that in the circumstances of the case, assessment on the court receiver for the aforesaid three assessment years was bad and invalid in law. Even otherwise, he contended that he was not liable to be assessee for the income which has been received by the joint receivers in the previous years relevant to the assessment years. On an application by the court receiver, he was allowed by the Tribunal to raise these contentions. The argument advanced on his behalf was that the (court receiver) was not in receipt of the profits during the period the income was earned and, therefore, he was not assessable in respect thereof. The Tribunal rejected this contention on the ground that there was continuity in the office of the receiver and the change of the incumbent of that office did not alter the position. The decision in Asit Kumar Ghose v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income -tax, which was cited on behalf of the court receiver before the Tribunal, was held by the Tribunal as not applicable to the facts of the case. The decision of the Tribunal on this aspect of the case has given rise to the question as regards the liability of the court receiver to be assessee on the income in respect of these aforesaid three assessment years.

(3.) WHEN the reference came for hearing before us, we felt some difficulty in answering the second question, because the Tribunal had not recorded its findings on the question as to whether the legacies mentioned in sub -clauses (a) to (g) of clause 4 of the will, or any one or more of them, were for religious or charitable purposes within the meaning of section 4(3)(i) of the Act. We, therefore, directed the Tribunal to submit a supplemental statement of the case regarding its finding on the aforesaid question. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in the supplemental statement of the case are on the various sub -clauses of clause 4 of the will are as follows :