CHANDABAI DAGA Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Badridas Daga died on 8th June, 1963, i.e., in the midst of the previous year (29th Oct., 1962 to 17th Oct., 1963) relevant to the asst. year 1964 65. On 4th Sept., 1964, his executors (the petitioner being the sole surviving executor) filed a return of net wealth on behalf of the estate for the asst. year 1964 65 pursuant to, notices issued to them in this behalf. It is the petitioner's case that they did so because they entertained the mistaken belief that executors were liable for wealth tax even if the person whose wealth was to be assessed had not been alive on the relevant valuation date. On 6th Nov., 1965, the assessment order was made. The valuation date for the purposes of the assessment was, as stated therein, 17th Oct., 1963. On 4th Dec., 1964, an appeal was preferred against the assessment order. In the appeal, pending its disposal, an additional ground was taken that the executors were not liable to pay upon the value of the estate wealth tax for the asst. year 1964 65. By order dt. 4th April, 1966, the appeal was dismissed. The matter was carried in second appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, basing itself upon the judgment of this Court in Jamnadas vs. CWT (1965) 56 ITR 648 (Bom).

(2.) ON 24th March, 1980, a Division Bench of this Court decided the reference in CWT vs. Keshub Mahindra (1983) 139 ITR 22 (Bom) and the judgment was reported in January, 1983. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition averring that it became known to her only by reason of the reporting of the Keshub Mahindra judgment (supra) that no assessment could be made in law upon the executors of the estate of a deceased even for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the deceased had died. The petitioner claimed that the payment of wealth tax pursuant to the assessment order dt. 6th Nov., 1965, had been made on the basis of a mistake of law. Such wealth tax had been recovered without authority of law and the Union of India was bound to repay it.

(3.) IN Keshub Mahindra's case (supra), this Court was hearing a reference in which one of the questions was "Whether, in computing the net wealth of the assessee, the value of the assets left by the assessee's father was to be included ?" This question was raised in relation to the asst. yr. 1964 65. The assessee's father died on 31st Oct., 1963. The assessee, while submitting the return for the asst. year 1964 65, which was relevant thereto, stated that he had filed a separate return of the net wealth of his father because, according to him, the estate was still to be administered and the final position could be ascertained only after completion of the administration of the estate.