Judgment 1. This tax reference case under Sec. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 thereinafter referred to as "the Act"), relates to the assessment year 1956-57, and earlier this reference case was heard by a Bench of this court on the 8th of August, 1974. The assessment pertains to the well-known estate commonly known as Bettiah Raj which was under the court of wards. Mahurani Janki Kuer was the last holder of the Bettiah Estate. She died on 27th November, 1954, that is to say, before the relevant financial year 1956-57, in respect of which the assessment has been made. The ITO assessed the income of the estate at the maximum rate under Sec. 41 of the Act. In appeal the manager, court of wards, submitted that on the death of Maharani Janki Kuer, the Bettiah Estate escheated to the State of Bihar and was, therefore, not taxable under Sec. 41 at the maximum rate, which was rejected by the AAC by order dated 6th December, 1957. On further appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that "the question of heirship to the estate is now the subject-matter of a pending litigation started by one Suresh Nandan Sinha claiming the estate as a nearest heir of late Maharani Sahiba" and observed that it was too early to say that the estate escheated to the Government. It was, therefore, held that as the heirs were indeterminate, the assessment under Sec. 41(1) of the Act was proper. On an application filed by the manager, court of wards, the Appellate Tribunal made a reference and referred the following questions for the decision of this court: 1. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, could assessment be made upon the manager of the court of wards, Bettiah Estate, in respect of the income from the Bettiah Estate ? (ii) If the assessment could be made on the manager of the court of wards in respect of the income from the Bettiah Estate, was it chargeable to tax at the maximum rates under Sec. 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act?" 2. This reference had been registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 556 of 1960 [Manager, Court of Wards, Bettiah Estate V/s. CIT--[1964] 54 ITR 6 (Pat)]. This reference had been registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 556 of 1960 [Manager, Court of Wards, Bettiah Estate V/s. CIT--[1964] 54 ITR 6 (Pat)]. It was heard by a Bench of this court on the 17th December, 1963, and it was held that the first question was answered in favour of the assessee, that is to say, it was held that the assessment made upon the manager, court of wards, Bettiah Estate in respect of the income of the Bettiah Estate for the assessment year in question was illegal. With regard to the second question mentioned above the Bench held that it was conceded by learned counsel for both the parties that the second question referred to the High Court by the Tribunal had become academic and it was not necessary to answer the second question in view of the first question being answered in favour of the assessee. Against the said order, the Commissioner moved the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by order dated 24th February, 1967, in Civil Appeal No. 1172 of 1965 [CIT V/s. Manager, Court of Wards, Bettiah Estate--[1968] 67 ITR 197 (SC) ], set aside the judgment of this court dated 17th December, 1963 ([1964] 54 ITR 6 (Pat)), restored that case and directed disposal of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment after the disposal of the appeal of Suresh Nandan Sinha claiming to be the nearest heir of late Maharani Janki Kuer. 3. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 8th August, 1974, by a Bench of this court. A supplementary statement of case was called for in the light of the observation made by the Supreme Court. This court observed as follows: "We are informed at the Bar that there were several first appeals filed in the High Court from the decision of the trial court in the Bettiah litigation, including the one by Suresh Nandan Sinha or his heir. The appeals have been disposed of by the High Court. The judgment of the court below taking the view that the estate of Bettiah had escheated to the State of Bihar has been set aside. Claims of certain persons have been allowed. The appeals have been disposed of by the High Court. The judgment of the court below taking the view that the estate of Bettiah had escheated to the State of Bihar has been set aside. Claims of certain persons have been allowed. In such a situation, following the direction of the Supreme Court, we think it is proper to call for a supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal as, in our opinion, on these fresh facts, unless there is a statement of the case, we cannot justifiably decide this reference. We ought to have stated that after the first question referred to this court was decided in favour of the assessee, the second question became academical and was not answered. It may be necessary to answer the second question. We, therefore, call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case within a period of three months from today in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court as also this court." 4. In accordance therewith a supplementary statement of case was submitted by the Tribunal on the 31st January, 1976. It was mentioned in the supplementary statement of case that the appeal filed by Suresh Nandan Sinha had been disposed of by the High Court and the judgment of the lower court taking the view that the estate of Bettiah had escheated to the State of Bihar had been set aside. 5. Mr. Kailash Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner has fairly conceded that on account of the judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment of the trial court taking the view that the estate of Bettiah had escheated to the State of Bihar, assessment could be made upon the Manager, Court of Wards, Bettiah Estate. 6. With regard to the second question it has been submitted that in view of Section 41(1) of the Act and in view of the judgment of the High Court the heirs were no longer indeterminate and, therefore, assessment could not be made at the maximum rate under Sec. 41(1) of the Act. 6. With regard to the second question it has been submitted that in view of Section 41(1) of the Act and in view of the judgment of the High Court the heirs were no longer indeterminate and, therefore, assessment could not be made at the maximum rate under Sec. 41(1) of the Act. Sec. 41(1) may usefully be quoted: "(1) In the case of income, profits or gains chargeable under this Act which the Courts of Wards, the Administrators-General, the Official Trustees or any receiver or manager (including any person whatever his designation who in fact manages property on behalf of another) appointed by or under any order of a court or any trustee or trustees appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing whether testamentary or otherwise (including the trustee or trustees under any wakf deed which is valid under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913 are entitled to receive on behalf of any person, the tax shall be levied upon and recoverable from such Court of Wards, Administrator-General, Official Trustee, receiver or manager or trustee or trustees, in the like manner and to the same amount as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person on whose behalf such income profits or gains are receivable, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly ; Provided that where any such income, profits, or gains or any part thereof are not specifically receivable on behalf of any one person, or where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf they are receivable are indeterminate or unknown, the tax shall be levied and recoverable at the maximum rate ; but, where such persons have no other personal income chargeable under this Act and none of them is an artificial juridical person, as if such income, profits or gains or such part thereof were the total income of an association of persons : Provided further that when part only of the income, profits and gains of a trust is chargeable under this Act, that proportion only of the income, profits and gains receivable by a beneficiary from the trust which the part so chargeable bears to the whole income, profits and gains of the trust shall be deemed to have been derived from that part." 7. It is an admitted position before us that the State of Bihar has also filed an appeal against the judgment of this court holding that there has been no escheat. It has been submitted that the appeal of Suresh Nandan Sinha has been dismissed but the appeal filed by the State of Bihar is still pending. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that Sec. 41 of the Act will have no application as the heirs are no longer indeterminate. It is difficult to foresee what will be the final decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessment which was made under Sec. 41(1) of the Act at the maximum rate is valid. The question as to who will inherit the estate and in what proportion is still a matter of controversy. The second question has also to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. It is, however, made clear that it will be without prejudice to the right of the parties to raise such questions before the Department as may be legal after the disposal of the appeal. 8. In the result, both the questions arc answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. In the circumstances, we would make no order as to costs.