Deceased’s estate blended with joint family property.

JAGADISAN J.

The expression "legal representative" occurring in section 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act has not been defined under that Act, and the question raised in this reference application turns upon the proper interpretation of that expression.

The following facts are not in dispute. Chidambara Reddiar and Vridhachala Reddiar were two brothers, who originally constituted a Hindu joint family. They became divided in the year 1942. Thereafter, each of them was assessed to income-tax as an "individual" in regard to their respective incomes. Chidambara died issueless on February 24, 1951, leaving behind his wife, Ponnammal. She succeeded to his properties as a limited heir under the Hindu law. It seems that Chidambara was adopting the calendar year as his year of account for purposes of income-tax. The income for the calendar year 1950, the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1951-1952, was assessed against Ponnammal treating her as the legal representative of her deceased husband. Ponnammal, however, surrendered her husband's estate on March 17, 1951, in favour of Vridhachala Reddiar, the nearest reversioner to succeed to the estate of Chidambara. For the assessment year 1952-1953, Vridhachala was assessed as the legal representative of Chidambara for the period between January 1, 1951, to March 16, 1951, and as the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his two sons, Ramanathan and Rajagopalan for the rest of the year. This was dated June 5, 1953. In the meantime Ponnammal died on June 29, 1952, and Vridhachala died on January 1, 1956. For the year ended March 31, 1951, the previous year for the assessment year 1951-52, the original assessment of the income of Chidambara against his wife, the deceased Ponnammal, was sought to be reopened under section 34 of the Act on the ground that a sum of Rs. 39, 362 has escaped tax. A notice under this provision was issued on March 26, 1956, on Ramanathan who was then the karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his brother, Rajagopalan. In response to this notice Ramanathan filed his return on August 2, 1956. In that return he described his status thus :"Estate of late K. Chidambara Reddiar formerly by legal representative late Sri Ponnammal, now by legal representative, V. Ramanathan."

Ramanathan also sent a covering letter along with his return wherein he stated thus : "I beg to submit that in this case proceedings initiated under section 34 is invalid as K. Chidambara Reddiar died on or about February 24, 1951, leaving a widow, Sri Ponnammal, who also died on or about June 29, 1952, without any issue and who prior to her death has surrendered (as per registered deed No. 1007/March 28, 1951) her properties, etc., to her husband's brother, K. Vridhachala Reddiar, who also died on January 1, 1956

The Income-tax Officer overruled the objection of Ramanathan and included the sum of Rs. 39, 362 as undisclosed income under section 12 of the Act. The assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but failed. On the application under section 66(1) of the Act, the Tribunal was referred the following question to this court : Whether the assessment on V. Ramanathan as legal representative of the estate of K. Chidambara Reddiar is valid in law ?" *

Vridhachala and his two sons, Ramanathan and Rajagopalan, were undoubtedly members of a Hindu undivided family but the surrender by Ponnammal was and could only have been in favour of Vridhachala as the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed to the estate of Chidambara if the limited owner were to die on the date of the surrender. The result was that Vridhachala inherited the properties as the next heir of Chidambara. The effect of a valid surrender under the Hindu law is to efface the existence of the limited owner and to accelerate the succession to the estate of the last full owner. The capacity in which Vridhachala inherited the p