NANDKISHORE SAKARLAL Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHAMPABEN Sakarlal passed away on 19th Sept., 1973. Thereupon, the accountable person filed estate duty account in respect of the estate of the deceased on 30th March, 1974. In the course of the assessment proceedings, exemption was claimed in respect of Rs. 10,000 out of the total gifts of Rs. 57,975 made by the deceased relying on Sub S. (2) of S. 9 of the ED Act. Sec. 9(1) provides that property taken under a disposition made by the deceased purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, settlement upon persons in succession, or otherwise which shall not have been bona fide made two years or more before the death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the death provided that in the case of gifts made for public charitable purposes, the period shall be six months. Sub s. (2) of S. 9 on which reliance is placed reads as under :

(2.) THE case of the accountable person is that by way of normal expenditure, the deceased gifted away a total sum of Rs. 57,975 between 3rd Feb., 1972, and 28th Dec., 1972, and hence he is entitled to exemption of Rs. 10,000, the maximum permitted by Sub S. (2) of S. 9 of the Act. In order to bring his case within the ambit of cl. (b) of Sub S. (2) of S. 9, the accountable person put up the contention that the deceased used to make gifts regularly in favour of relatives on every Makar Sankranti (Uttarayan) day, that is, 14th January of every year. On the basis of this statement, the accountable person claimed that the expenditure incurred by way of gifts by the deceased was "normal expenditure" within the meaning of cl. (b) of Sub S. (2) of S. 9 of the Act. In order to succeed, the accountable person must be shown to have established the fact that the deceased made gifts in favour of her relatives on every Makar Sankranti Day. Unless this fact is shown to have been established, the very premise on which exemption is claimed under S. 9(2)(b) of the Act would stand knocked out. In the instant case, in the statement of case submitted to this Court, the Tribunal has stated the facts in the following words: