S C MAZUMDAR, RECEIVER Vs. COMMROF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question referred to us is: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amalgamated assessment on the receiver as the principal officer of an association of persons is valid in law?

(2.) The facts found are that the Trigunaits are governed by the Mitaksbara School of Hindu Law in which the plaintiffs as representatives of Janardan Trigunait have one-third share, the representatives of Sham Lai Trigunait one-third share, and the remaining one-third belongs to the representatives of Santustamoni Trigunait. Bhubneshwar Trigunait and Mukteshwar Trigunait as representatives of Janardhan Trigunait instituted Title Suit No. 139 of 1906 for partition of the family estate consisting of certain collieries and royalty bearing lands. The Subordinate Judge of Purulia on 15-2-1907, passed an interlocutory order for the appointment of a receiver, but as the parties did not agree to the person to be appointed as receiver, he on 25 February tentatively appointed one Tewari as receiver, and after obtaining sanction of the Judicial Commissioner be appointed Tewari as a permanent receiver on 9-4-1907. It was directed by that order that the parties should deliver to the receiver all the stock-in-trade, books of accounts, etc., including coal-fields and mines and all other properties of the estate, and further that the tenants and occupiers of the estate do attorn and pay their rents, royalties, price of coals in arrear etc., to the receiver. The appeal to the High Court was dismissed and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on July, 1908, by which inter alia it was decreed, after defining the shares of the parties as aforesaid, that: The colliery at Angerpathra and the coal lands at Angerpathra be kept ijmal under the management of the receiver and the distribution of profits by him to the parties in respect of their shares till such time as the pities may mutually agree to the division or any other course to be adopted in the matter. Against the preliminary decree there was an appeal to the High Court, but the parties entered into compromise on 4-5-1909. The relevant terms of this compromise are that certain coal lands in Angerpathra which were in the occupation of the Union Coal Company should be taken out of the management of the receiver, but in other respects the decree of the trial Court was confirmed. The final decree in the partition suit was made on 16-2-1910 and this arrangement continued till 11-4- 1931 when Mr. Mazumdar was appointed the receiver in place of Mr. Tewari, and since then the colliery at Angerpathra and other royalty bearing lands have been in his possession and management.

(3.) The income from these lands and collieries is the subject matter of the assessment in the-present case. From 1925-26 right up to 1989-4O the assessments have been made on the Trigunait Brothers estate through the receiver, but the total income was being distributed among the beneficiaries in proportion to their respective shares, and the tax applicable to each was recovered from the receiver in accordance with the provisions of Section 41, Income-tax Act.