CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SATYAJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court under S. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (in short "the Act"), by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench -A (in short "the Tribunal") :

(2.) THE background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows : A proceeding under the Act was initiated on the basis of a statement of estate delivered by Satyajit (hereinafter referred to as "accountable person") on 10th April, 1975, in respect of the late Shri Durga Dass (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), who breathed his last on 17th May, 1974. During the assessment proceedings the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (hereinafter referred to as "the Assistant Controller") was of the view that a property, which was thrown into the hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family (in short "the HUF") on 31st March, 1973 and subsequently allocated to six members thereof on 1st June, 1973, was to be taken as a disposition within the meaning of the S. 27 of the Act and the value thereof was to be included. The accountable person questioned the inclusion before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty (in short "the Appellate Controller"). The said authority held that when the deceased impressed his self -occupied property with a character of joint family property there was no transfer, gift or disposition within the meaning of any of the provisions of the Act. He held that neither S. 9 nor S. 10 nor S. 27 justifies the inclusion as done by the Assistant Controller. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue on two grounds, i.e., about the non -applicability of S. 9 and the valuation of the property. The Tribunal considered various decisions regarding throwing of self -acquired property into the common hotchpot and held that there was no element of gift involved to warrant application of either S. 9 or 27 of the Act. On being moved for a reference, the question as set out above, has been referred for the opinion of this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue referred to two decisions of the apex Court in CED vs. Kantilal Trikamlal 1976 CTR (SC) 391 : (1976) 105 ITR 92 (SC) and CED vs. N. Shankaran (1991) 100 CTR (SC) 104 : (1992) 193 ITR 28 (SC). It was his stand that the expression "disposition" has a wide ambit and the factual position as indicated brooks within its scope, throwing of the self -acquired property into the common hotchpot by blending as well as partition subsequently.