JAG MOHAN Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 64(1) of the ED Act, 1953, relating to the estate of Shri Prem Raj, who died on 2nd Aug., 1954. The account of the estate of the deceased was furnished to the Asstt. CED, Delhi, by his son, Brij Mohan. However, by the time the reference was made to this Court, Brij Mohan had also died, and the estate is now represented before us by three other persons. Those persons are, Jag Mohan, the second son of the deceased, his widow, Shrimati Sona Devi, and the widow of Brij Mohan, Shrimati Kamla Devi. They are referred to hereinafter as the accountable persons.

(2.) THE account furnished by Brij Mohan declared the share of the deceased as being from an HUF and the main contention on his behalf was that there was a joint family nucleus from which the deceased had built up his business. The said nucleus is said to have come into being as a result of the partition in 1903 of the joint family properties belonging to the deceased and his brother, Shri Bhola Nath, who predeceased him. It was further his case that the deceased had treated his self - acquired properties also as belonging to the Hindu joint family consisting of himself and his sons. Accordingly, it was claimed that only the share of the deceased in the joint family properties was chargeable to estate duty.

(3.) BRIJ Mohan then appealed to the Central Board of Revenue and claimed there also that the entire property had been acquired with the help of the nucleus, which came to the deceased as a result of the partition with his brother in 1903 A. D. (Sambat year 1960). A reference was made to a Lekha Bahi for the Sambat years 1944 to 1960 where an entry pertaining to the formal partition was recorded. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if there was no such nucleus, there was sufficient evidence to show that the deceased had thrown his self -acquired properties into the common stock and thus converted the same into joint family property. The Board, however, rejected these contentions and came to the conclusion that the Assistant Controller was correct in holding that the properties were owned by the deceased in his individual capacity, and hence the assessment on that basis was correct.