Single indivisible estate principle under income tax law extends executor assessment to foreign property income, while late procedural objections are waived.

For section 168 of the Income-tax Act, the estate of a deceased person is treated as a single indivisible assessable entity, so income from United Kingdom properties can be assessed in the hands of the executors together with Indian property income. The fact that different executors or administration arrangements exist for different assets does not split the estate into separate taxable units. A procedural objection that all executors were not separately proceeded against cannot be raised later at the reference stage when no timely objection was taken before the assessing authority, and such an objection is treated as waived.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purposes of section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the estate of the deceased was to be treated as one and indivisible so that income from properties situate in the United Kingdom could be taxed in the hands of the executors along with income from properties situate in India; (ii) Whether the assessee could resist inclusion of the foreign income at the reference stage on the ground that all executors were not separately proceeded against, when no timely objection had been raised before the assessing authority.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purposes of section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the estate of the deceased was to be treated as one and indivisible so that income from properties situate in the United Kingdom could be taxed in the hands of the executors along with income from properties situate in India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the income of the estate of a deceased person as chargeable in the hands of the executor, or, where there are more executors than one, in the hands of the executors as an association of persons. The estate of a deceased person has no separate legal personality and does not split into separate estates merely because different wills or different sets of executors are appointed for property in different jurisdictions. The provisions governing assessment of estate income contemplate the estate as a single whole, and the mode of administration does not alter the identity of the assessable entity.

Conclusion: The income from the United Kingdom properties was includible in the assessment of the executors as income of one estate, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could resist inclusion of the foreign income at the reference stage on the ground that all executors were not separately proceeded against, when no timely objection had been raised before the assessing authority.

Analysis: The assessment had proceeded against the executors in the status in which they were liable to be taxed, and the record showed no effective objection at the appropriate stage to the inclusion of the foreign income. A procedural objection of this nature, going to the manner in which the assessment was conducted and not to the inherent jurisdiction of the authority, can be waived if not taken in time. On the facts, the assessee was not permitted to resurrect that objection later.

Conclusion: The objection was treated as waived and was rejected against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirmed the taxability of the foreign income in the hands of the executors on the statutory scheme and on waiver principles, while declining to answer the reference on the separate trustee-character issue left unexamined on the record.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of section 168, the estate of a deceased person is a single indivisible assessable entity, and where executors are liable in that capacity as an association of persons, a procedural objection not timely raised in assessment proceedings may be waived.

---