CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. LAXMANBHARATI GURU DHANBHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the undermentioned two questions while exercising the jurisdiction under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for our opinion and answer :

(2.) THE facts which are beyond the pale of controversy may be noticed thus :

(3.) IT cannot be accepted that the only property which was within the disposing capacity of the deceased Mahant was a right to nominate his successor to the office by or under the will. As found by the Tribunal itself, the deceased had a right of residence along with other persons who are popularly known as Bhayats of the Math. It is, therefore, clear that, over and above the right of nomination of a successor -Mahant, the deceased had a right in the property of the Math to be maintained along with the right of residence. To this extent, it appears that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not only a right to nominate his successor -Mahant nut that he had also a right to be correct. It shall have to be accepted that the deceased has not only a right of residence along with other Bhayats, vis -a -vis, the Math property. However, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal shall have to be accepted because the abovesaid interest of the deceased Mahant in the Math property could not have been computed under section 40 of the same. In view of this position, it the absence of the necessary computation, the estate could not have been brought into the net of the Tribunal on the question of law shall have to be endorsed by us.