2025 (8) TMI 1366 - AT - Income Tax

Under s.168(1)(a) sole executor treated as individual for tax slabs; multiple executors may attract AOP rates

Estate of Nalini Manilal Versus ITO 20 (1) (1), Mumbai

Estate of Nalini Manilal Versus ITO 20 (1) (1), Mumbai - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the estate of a deceased person administered by a sole executor is assessable and taxable at the slab rates applicable to an individual under Section 168(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or at the maximum marginal rate applicable to an Association of Persons (AOP). 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify income and recompute tax invoking Sections 168 and 167B, instead of applying only Section 168(1), including questions regarding the relevance of PAN/status of AOP for statistical purposes and applicability of Section 167B where assessment relates to the deceased's estate. 3. Whether computation of tax at MMR instead of individual slab rates results in excess levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicable tax rate where there is a sole executor (Section 168(1)(a)) Legal framework: Section 168(1) provides that income of the estate shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the executor: (a) if there is only one executor, then as if the executor were an individual; (b) if there are more executors than one, then as if the executors were an AOP. Section 168(2)-(4) prescribe separate assessments and treatment of distributions. Precedent treatment: The appeal invoked earlier decisions (including those of a High Court and an ITAT) holding that the executor's status as AOP may be for statistical purposes and that where a sole executor exists the estate should be taxed at individual rates; these authorities were relied upon by the appellant before the Tribunal. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court undertook a plain-language reading of Section 168(1). The provision is dispositive: the statutory categorisation depends on the number of executors. If the will appoints only one executor, the estate's income is to be assessed 'as if the executor were an individual,' which, on its face, requires application of individual slab rates rather than AOP/MMR treatment. Determination of the number of executors is therefore a factual prerequisite to applying Section 168(1)(a) or (b). Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that Section 168(1)(a) mandates individual-rate treatment where only one executor is appointed is ratio decidendi. Observations on the necessity of examining the will to determine the number of executors are integral to that ratio. Conclusions: Where, on facts, a sole executor is appointed under the will, the estate is assessable and taxable at rates applicable to an individual under Section 168(1)(a), not at the maximum marginal rate for an AOP. Factual determination of the number of executors is essential before applying the correct tax rate. Issue 2 - Scope of verification/direction to Assessing Officer and interplay with Section 167B and PAN/statistical status Legal framework: Section 168 governs assessment of executors; Section 167B (assessment where person dies after the end of the previous year) may be relevant in certain contexts. PAN/status allocation and administrative classification (AOP for PAN purposes) do not, by themselves, determine the statutory tax rate under Section 168. Precedent treatment: The parties cited authorities asserting that PAN or administrative AOP classification may be only for technical/statistical purposes, and that substantive tax incidence follows Section 168's mandate. The Tribunal referenced such authorities but did not conclusively adjudicate conflicts because of unresolved factual evidence. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court stressed that PAN/status or administrative labels cannot override the statutory scheme of Section 168. The correct legal test is whether the will appoints a single executor (triggering Section 168(1)(a)) or multiple executors (triggering Section 168(1)(b)). Where the record lacked conclusive documentary proof before the CIT(A), the Tribunal considered it necessary in the interest of justice to remit the matter for verification of the will's authenticity and the factual question of how many executors were appointed. The Tribunal therefore directed fresh adjudication by the CIT(A), with verification of the will and opportunity of hearing, to determine applicability of Section 168(1)(a) and whether any other provisions (e.g., Section 167B) are relevant on the particular facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: The principle that administrative classification (PAN/AOP) is not determinative of the tax rate under Section 168 is a legal conclusion central to the decision (ratio) insofar as it supports remand for factual determination. Comments on non-applicability of Section 167B in such circumstances-expressed by parties-were not finally decided and are largely obiter pending the CIT(A)'s fresh findings. Conclusions: The Tribunal remanded the appeal to the CIT(A) to verify the will and decide afresh whether Section 168(1)(a) or (b) applies; administrative PAN/AOP labels are insufficient to determine tax rate; invocation of Section 167B requires factual determination and cannot be resolved without authenticating the will and hearing the parties. Issue 3 - Consequences of taxing the estate at MMR: excess interest under Sections 234B and 234C Legal framework: Incorrect computation of tax liability may lead to consequential interest under Sections 234B (interest for default in payment of advance tax) and 234C (interest for deferment of advance tax instalments), thereby increasing demand. Precedent treatment: Parties alleged precedential support for recalculating tax at slab rates and thereby deleting excess interest demand; Tribunal acknowledged these contentions but refrained from final adjudication without verifying which rate properly applied on the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: Because computation of tax at MMR by the CPC produced a higher tax liability, the appellant contended the excess interest charges flowed from that error. The Tribunal accepted that if the CIT(A) on verification concludes Section 168(1)(a) applies (i.e., sole executor), recomputation at individual slab rates would logically require reconsideration and potential deletion of interest/demand attributable to the incorrect higher tax computation. Ratio vs. Obiter: The observation that incorrect application of MMR produces excess interest is an applied legal consequence and forms part of the operative reasoning for remand (ratio as to consequences conditional on factual finding). Specific deletion of interest was not ordered by the Tribunal pending fresh adjudication and therefore remains contingent (obiter in terms of remedy until CIT(A) acts). Conclusions: The excess interest alleged arises from the CPC's application of MMR; if, on remand, the CIT(A) finds that Section 168(1)(a) applies and recomputes tax at slab rates, consequent deletion or adjustment of interest under Sections 234B and 234C will follow as required by law. Procedural disposition Reasoning: The will (placed on record for the first time before the Tribunal) is decisive on the factual question of the number of executors; the CIT(A) had not conclusively verified that document. In the interests of justice and adherence to the statutory test in Section 168, the Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A), directing verification of the will's authenticity and providing the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. Conclusion: Grounds raising incorrect application of MMR versus individual slab rates, and consequential interest, are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and remanded for factual verification and consequential determination of tax and interest.