CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. ANDAL THAYARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In T.R.C. No. 17 of 1974 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal') at the instance of the revenue has referred the following questions under S. 64 (b) of the Estate Duty Act of 1953 (Central Act No. 34 of 1953) ('the Act'):- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal, an error of law to hold that the provisions of S. 7 (I) Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case ?

(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal an error of law to hold that the provisions of S, 34 (I) (c) Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case ? In T.R.C. No. 85 of 1975 the Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person ('assessee') has referred the following question : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of S. 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act were operative and applicable to the facts of the case ? In order to appreciate the questions referred to this Court and the answers to. be furnished thereto, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the cases. 2. T. R. C. No. 17 of 1974 : One A. G. Changalarayalu, a member of a Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family ('HUE") consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Andal Thayaramma, his son and a daughter, died on 17-4-1964. The HUF owned movable and immovable properties.

(3.) On the death of her husband, Andal Thayaramma filed a return under the Act before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Bangalore ('ACED') who by his order dt. 21-2-1969 (Annexure-A) inter alia, held that a sum of Rs. 1,46,711, the value of the half share of the lineal descendants of the deceased was aggregable with the estate passing on the death of the deceased for the purposes of - rates of duty payable. Against the said order of ACED and the aforeseid aggregation, with which alone, we are presently concerned, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Southern Zone, Madras ('Appellate Collector'), who by his order dated 26-12-1970 (Annexure-B) dismissed the same. Against the said orders of the Appellate Collector and ACED, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which by its order dt. 23-2-1974 accepted the same and held that the said aggregation was impermissible. Hence, this reference at the instance of the revenue.