CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. RM MUTTHAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE tax case references arise out of the estate duty assessment of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar, who died on February 23, 1964 at Melasivapuri. In the estate duty account filed by the son of the deceased, the accountable person, it was claimed that the deceased was domiciled in Malaya and, therefore, the foreign movable properties valued at Rs. 3, 65, 700, could not be included in the dutiable estate.

(2.) THE Assistant Controller of Estate Dutyrejected the claim so made by the accountable person, holding that the deceased had not abandoned the domicil of origin with a view to acquire a domicil of choice in Malaya. In that view, the value of the foreign movables, was also included in the value of the estate that passed on the death of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar. On appeal by the accountable person before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, it was found that the deceased had manifested an intention to continue his domicil of origin and in that view, the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Dutywas affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. On further appeal by the accountable person before the Tribunal, it took a contrary view and upholding the stand taken by the accountable person, excluded the value of foreign movable properties from assessment. On a reference at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, the matter was brought up before this court earlier and this court directed the Tribunal to consider the question, whether the deceased had given up the domicile of origin and had acquired a new Malayan domicil, afresh, and dispose of the appeal. Pursuant to this direction, the Tribunal, after hearing the appeal afresh, concluded that on the date of death, deceased Ramanathan Chettiar was domiciled in Malaya, and, therefore, the value of the foreign movable properties should be excluded from assessment to estate duty.

(3.) THAT would also establish that the deceased had surrendered to the power of human affection, particularly of his wife and children and that brought him to India, though at intervals. It is also significant that the deceased had died while on a visit to India to finalise his son's marriage and that also clearly establishes that severance of ties with the country of origin was farthest from his mind. Besides, the Tribunal had referred to the assessments of the deceased for the assessment years 1947-48 to 1963-64, in the status of "non-resident" and in the status of "not ordinarily resident" for 1964-65 and 1965-66. The reliance on the income-tax assessments, in our view, was misplaced, for, those assessments had been made on the basis of the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act and that would not in any manner indicate the state of mind of the deceased regarding domicil.