The assessment of a residuary legacy in the hands of the legal representatives is not sustainable when the administration of the estate is not complete.

( 1 ) SIR R. N. Mukherjee was a well-known industrialist. Sir R. N. Mukherjee died having executed a will under which he appointed an executor for administration of his estate. One Rabindra Nath Mukherjee being the grandson of Sir R. N. Mukherjee was entitled to one-third share in the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased ). However, before the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) was fully administered, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee died on September 20, 1975. Rabindra Nath Mukherjee had married one Mahamaya. The four petitioners are the four children of Mahamaya and Rabindra Nath Mukherjee. The petitioners have challenged the assessment orders in respect of the years 1968-69 to 1975-76 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in which the petitioners have been sought to be assessed in respect of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee's one-third share in his grandfather's estate. According to the petitioners, 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.

( 2 ) 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.

( 3 ) 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 assessment orders, the valuation shown by Smt. Mahamaya Mukherjee in her returns was accepted but the respondents included Rabindra Mukherjee's one-third share in the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee.

( 4 ) SMT. Mahamaya Mukherjee preferred appeals from the assessment orders. By a composite order dated May 6, 1978, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the assessment orders. Two grounds were taken before the appellate authority. The first ground was that the respondent should have separately assessed each of the legal representatives of Rabindra Mukherjee and served separate notices of hearing on each of them. The second ground raised was that under Section 19a of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, until the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) was fully administered, the Wealth-tax Officer could not include the share of Rabindra Mukherjee in such estate as part of wealth inherited by the assessees.

( 5 ) IN disposing of the two contentions, the appellate authority held as far as the first contention was concerned that respondent No. 1 should have enquired as to how many legal representatives Rabindra Nath Mukherjee had and whether Smt. Mahamaya Mukherjee was competent to represent all such legal representatives. Respondent No. 1 was accordingly directed to make an enquiry to ascertain the facts before assessing the petitioners as "mahamaya Mukherjee and others".

( 6 ) AS far as the second contention was concerned, the appellate authority held that respondent No. 1 had relied upon a certificate from the executors and trustees of the estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee. In dealing with the contention the appellate authority held as under ;"this certificate, therefore, does not throw any light as to whether the estate of late Sir R. N. Mukherjee was fully administered. The Wealth-tax Officer had also not discussed the claim of the assessee in th