Pending title disputes do not block property income assessment where co-owners receive rent for themselves, not as court-appointed managers.

A pending dispute over title does not bar assessment of a person as owner for property income tax where the assessee has consistently claimed ownership and the Department is entitled to determine ownership for assessment purposes without waiting for the civil suit. The court-ordered arrangement for joint collection of rent by co-owners did not make them receivers or managers appointed by or under an order of court within the relevant provision, and that machinery provision did not exclude direct assessment of the real owners. On the stated reasoning, the income was received and enjoyed by the co-owners themselves, so assessment on the assessee's share of property income was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a pending dispute as to title precluded assessment of the assessee as owner under the property income provisions; (ii) whether the assessee and his co-sharer were managers appointed by or under an order of court within the meaning of the provision governing tax on income received by receivers or managers and, if so, whether assessment could be made directly on the owners.

Issue (i): whether a pending dispute as to title precluded assessment of the assessee as owner under the property income provisions.

Analysis: The assessment was made on the footing that the assessee claimed ownership throughout and the Department was entitled to decide ownership for assessment purposes without awaiting final determination of the civil suit. A mere dispute as to title does not arrest assessment, for otherwise assessment could be postponed indefinitely. The existence of interim arrangements for enjoyment of the property did not alter the basic position that the assessee was treated as an owner for tax purposes.

Conclusion: The assessee could be assessed as owner notwithstanding the pending title dispute.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee and his co-sharer were managers appointed by or under an order of court within the meaning of the provision governing tax on income received by receivers or managers and, if so, whether assessment could be made directly on the owners.

Analysis: The court-ordered arrangement only enabled the co-owners to collect rents jointly after discharge of the receiver; it did not amount to an appointment of them as receivers or managers on behalf of another. Even assuming they could be described as managers, the statutory provision was treated as machinery for collection and not as excluding direct assessment of the real owners. The section applied only where income was received by a receiver or manager on behalf of another, whereas here the income was received and enjoyed by the owners themselves in equal shares.

Conclusion: The provision did not apply, and direct assessment on the assessee was valid.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the assessment on the assessee's share of the property income was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending dispute over title does not prevent assessment of a person as owner for property income tax, and the provision taxing income received by a receiver or manager applies only where the income is received on behalf of another, not where co-owners receive and enjoy the income for themselves.

---