HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Administrator-General of West Bengal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta
Civil Appeals Nos. 168 and 169 of 1964
[1965] 1 SCR 650 ·
Indian Income Tax Act, 1922: section 41
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1950-51, 1951-52
01 · Facts of the case
Raja P. N. Tagore’s will directed payment of legacies during administration and left the residue to five sons. The High Court later appointed the Administrator-General de bonis non. For two assessment years he claimed that section 41 required assessment on behalf of the sons in their determinate shares rather than assessment of him as an individual.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court held that express reference to an Administrator-General in section 41 did not remove the need to prove that income was received on behalf of another person. Until administration ended and the net residue was ascertained, residuary legatees had no property in a specific investment or its income. The administrator received and applied income as part of the mixed estate fund, in the same position as an executor, rather than as trustee for the sons.
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held section 41 inapplicable, answered the referred questions against the Administrator-General and dismissed both appeals with costs.
Source: Holding and operative order
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue. The Administrator-General was assessable in his own administrative capacity, not separately for the sons’ alleged shares.
Source: Operative result
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in estate assessments, establish whether administration is complete, whether residue and beneficiary shares are ascertained, and in what legal capacity income is received. A statutory list of representative persons does not replace the “on behalf of” condition.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote was distinguished from the judgment text and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 10-page count match catalogue asset 1965_1_650_659; the full extracted report and operative pages were reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeals Nos. 168 and 169 of 1964, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published AKHB note or archived reviewed record with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The decision concerns section 41 of the 1922 Act and an unadministered estate. Current representative-assessee provisions and succession law must be considered separately.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.