Executor-received income and successor substitution in assessment were not permissible absent clear statutory authority.

Income received by executors during incomplete administration was not chargeable to the residuary beneficiary on the footing that it was received on his behalf or that he later received it as receiver. Until administration is complete, the executors do not hold the estate as trustees for the residuary legatee, and the beneficiary has no vested right in the income of that year. The taxing statute also contained no general power to substitute the beneficiary for the executors in pending assessment proceedings. Notices issued to him in substitution were therefore unauthorised, and the assessment against him was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was chargeable to agricultural income-tax on the footing that the income received by the executors during the accounting year was received by them on his behalf, or that he received it later as receiver or beneficiary. (ii) Whether assessment proceedings validly commenced against the executors could be continued and completed against the assessee on service of notices upon him.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was chargeable to agricultural income-tax on the footing that the income received by the executors during the accounting year was received by them on his behalf, or that he received it later as receiver or beneficiary.

Analysis: The income of the accounting year was received by the executors while the estate was still under administration. Until administration is complete, executors do not hold the estate as trustees for the residuary legatee, and the residuary beneficiary has no vested right in any specific part of the income. The special provisions for receivers, administrators, trustees, and persons on whose behalf income is received did not apply, because the executors did not receive the income on behalf of the assessee and the assessee did not receive that income as receiver during the relevant year. Later possession of estate assets did not amount to receipt of the agricultural income of the earlier year.

Conclusion: The assessee was not chargeable on that income under the relevant charging or representative provisions, and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether assessment proceedings validly commenced against the executors could be continued and completed against the assessee on service of notices upon him.

Analysis: The taxing statute contained no general provision permitting substitution of a successor in assessment proceedings merely because office or possession changed. Assessment proceedings are creatures of the statute and cannot be carried over from one person to another by analogy with civil procedure. Since the assessee was not himself liable to file a return for income he had not received, his subsequent participation did not validate notices issued to him in substitution of the executors. The notices and the completion of assessment against him were therefore unauthorised.

Conclusion: The assessment could not lawfully be continued or completed against the assessee, and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference succeeds for the assessee, the assessment on him is held unsustainable, and the taxable proceeding is not maintainable against him on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: Where income is received by executors during incomplete administration, a residuary beneficiary or later receiver is not liable to direct assessment unless the statute clearly makes the income receivable on his behalf or authorises substitution of a successor in the pending assessment.

---