CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY LUCKNOW Vs. ALOKE MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on certificate under Section 65 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court delivered on a case stated under Section 64 of the Act by which the High Court answered two of the questions against the accountable person and in favour of the Controller of Estate Duty but the third in the negative, against the Controller of Estate Duty and in favour of the accountable person. We are not concerned with the first two questions, but only the third, which reads :

(2.) The facts giving rise to the reference are these: The late Sri K. M. Mitra died on February 11, 1957 leaving a large and extensive estate. On his death his son Aloke Mitra, the accountable person, filed a return of estate duty valuing the estate of deceased at 3,75,235. This included 502 shares of Rs. 100/- each in Mitra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. and 225 shares of Rs. 100/- in Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. held by the deceased. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not accept this part of the return and included 2002 shares in Mitra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. and 1602 shares in Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. standing in the name of Smt. N. Mitra, wife of the deceased, and his three sons, Aloke Mitra, Ashoke Mitra and Deepak Mitra, brother-in-law B. N. Ghosh and an ex-employee, R. N. Misra since they were holding these shares benami. He accordingly included the value of these shares in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. His order was affirmed in appeal by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, that is, the Appellate Tribunal. Under Sec. 64 (1) of the Act the Appellate Tribunal referred the question whether the shares allotted to the wife of the deceased as his nominee or as benamidar, were, as from the commencememt of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 held by her as a full owner thereof by virtue of provisions of Section 14 of that Act.

(3.) According to the High Court, the said question did not at all arise. On the finding that the transaction was benami and that the deceased was the real owner of the shares, the wife must be held to have no interest or title to the shares. She was merely a benamidar or name-lender. Since she had no interest at all, the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act were not attracted as she was not possessed of any right or title.