TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners, their father, Rabindra, till the date of his death, had not received any portion of his grandfather's estate. Therefore, the question of the petitioners being assessed to wealth-tax in respect of their great grandfather's estate for the period prior to their father's death on September 20, 1975, did not arise. In any event, it is contended that the executors had themselves intimated Mahamaya Mukherjee by a letter dated September 24, 1979, that the administration of the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) was not complete. Smt. Mahamaya Mukherjee filed wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 pursuant to notices issued by the Wealth-tax Officer being respondent No. 1 herein under section 17 of the Act. Smt. Mahamaya Mukherjee disclosed movable and immovable properties in her returns which her husband, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, had acquired out of his personal assets. Wealth-tax was paid in respect of the assessment years in question. Respondent No. 1 completed the assessments in respect of the years 1968-69 to 1975-76 describing the assessee as "Mahamaya Mukherjee and others, the legal representative of the late Sir R. N. Mukherjee". In the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent No. 1 issued notices of hearing under section 16(2) of the Act on all the legal representatives after enquiring from the Income-tax Inspector that apart from Smt. Mahamaya Mukherjee, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee had left behind him his four children (the petitioners herein) as his legal heirs and representatives. The petitioners were represented through one advocate who filed a vakalatnama in respect of Smt. Mahamaya Mukherjee and all four petitioners. As far as the second directive of the appellate authority was concerned, respondent No. 1 recorded that a letter had been written to the executors and trustees of the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee, one D. K. Som representing the executor and trustee appeared and stated that the administration of the estate was complete, "only certain estate duty matters have to be finalised". He further stated that as far as the shares of the beneficiaries from the trust were concerned, the shares are all determined. He also stated that Sir Biren Mukherjee who was entitled to a 1/2 share from the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee was being regularly taxed in his personal file in Companies Circle IV, A-Ward, with regard to such 1/2 share. According to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... N. Mukherjee, hence, the notice, etc., have been duly and legally served and your contention is misconceived and not correct. Secondly, you cannot deny your tax liability on the plea that you have not yet received due share from the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case your petition cannot be entertained and the same is rejected." By letter dated March 1, 1988, the executor and trustee of the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) intimated the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that the assets of Sir R. N. Mukherjee had not yet been distributed. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the assessment orders and notices issued on the basis thereof principally on two grounds: (a) That the petitioner could not all be assessed as Mahamaya Mukherjee and others, and (b) That the assessment of the one-third share in the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) in their hands was contrary to section 19A of the Act. The respondents have raised three contentions: (a) Mahamaya truly represented the estate of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee as the assessment returns have been filed by her in respect of the assessment years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate of a deceased person shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the executor or executors. Admittedly, as note above, the assets of the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) to which Mahamaya and the petitioners are entitled are still in the hands of executors. Secondly, it is not known whether the petitioners had an opportunity of cross-examining the representative of the executors who had stated, apparently orally, to respondent No. 1 that the administration was complete except for some estate duty matters. In any event assuming such statement to be correct, the Appellate Commissioner had directed respondent No. 1 to enquire and ascertain whether the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee was completely administered. The fact that some estate duty matters had yet to be resolved indicates that the administration was not complete. In CIT v. Mrs. A. Ghosh [1986] 159 ITR 124, a Division Bench of this court held (at page 127) : " It has been found as a fact by the Tribunal that as admittedly estate duty in respect of the estate remained unpaid and the estate, therefore, had not been fully administered, the extent of the residuary legatee could not be ascertained and no part of the in....