Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) Tulsi Charan Law died on 6th of January, 1962, leaving behind him his wife, six sons and four daughters. He left a will executed on 20th December, 1956. In the said will he provided as follows: "(1) My just debts and funeral expenses shall be first paid out of my estate. (2) That all the movable and immovable properties receivable by me under the will of late father, Kumar Surendra Nath Law, inclusive of the compensation moneys to be received from the Govt. due on acquisition of the Narayangarh and Dafarpota Zamindaries, I devise, give and bequeath equally to my wife, Sm, Mahamaya Dassi, and to my six sons, Ajit, Sarat, Ranjit, Sanat, Biswanath and Sankar. My wife shall have life interest, power of alienation. After her death her share be taken equally by my sons or their heirs (males only). (3) That during the life time of my wife after my death she shall act as the guardian of the persons and properties of my such sons, who will then remain minors till such of them attains 24 (twenty-four) years or married provided always that till the death of my said wife all of my sons irrespective of their age or "marriage shall live jointly with my major sons. (4) That in the event of my sons predeceasing me or my wife after my death or in the event of any of them renouncing the world having no male heirs, his share subject to the life interest of his wife and marriage of daughters, if any, shall be taken by all other brothers or their respective heirs equally. (5) That in the event of my sons not attaining the age of inheritance at the time of death of my wife my eldest son, Ajit, with other major sons shall act as such guardian with no power of alienation."
(2.) No executor was appointed under the said will. The wife and the major sons applied to this court for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the properties left by late Tulsi Charan Law. It is not clear from the statement of the case as to when that application was made. It is stated that probate proceedings were pending in this court as mentioned hereinbefore. It is not apparent as to since when the said probate proceedings were pending in this court. It appears that Smt. Tarasundari Auddy, one of the married daughters of the testator, filed a caveat in this court challenging the will. Pending the suit this court by its order dated 1st of May, 1963, appointed Smt. Mahamaya Dassi, the widow of the testator as administratrix pendents lite. In the said order, it was provided as follows: "It is ordered that subject to the said applicant, Sm. Mahamaya Dassi, furnishing security for rupees one lakh by way of a personal bond in favour of the Registrar, Original side, of this court she be and is hereby appointed the administratrix pendente lite in the above goods, And it is further ordered that the said Smt. Mahamaya Dassi do keep a separate account with the State Bank of India of the compensation moneys receivable from Government and insurance moneys and other moneys which will be realised by her. And it is further ordered that the said Smt. Mahamaya Dassi shall not be entitled without further order of this court to incur any other expenditure except paying rates and taxes of the corporation, income-tax, the estate duty and other taxes for obtaining grant in the above goods and expenses for maintenance of her family consisting of herself, her sons and her unmarried daughters at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month."
(3.) We are concerned in this reference with the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 and the corresponding accounting years were the respective financial years. It is clear that for the assessment year 1963-64 for which the financial year was from April 1, 1962, to March 31, 1963, there was no administratrix pendente Ute and during the subsequent year an appointment had been made as mentioned hereinbefore. But it appears that for both the years Sm. Mahamaya Dassi had furnished returns of income under the I.T. Act, 1961, as administratrix pendente lite to the estate of Tulsi Charan Law showing the status as individual. Whether in respect of the first year with which we are concerned that was the correct position taken up by Mahamaya Dassi or whether the ITO was justified in proceeding on that basis is a point on which none of the parties have agitated. But this is a point in respect of which we shall advert later.;