CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. ANNAPURNAMBA Y SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the question referred for our decision is

(2.) THE deceased, Ramanatha Babu, had taken out insurance policies on his life of the total value of Rs. 37, 270. In addition to these policies, he had also taken out an insurance policy of the value of 55, 250 for the purpose of payment of estate duty. As seen from the facts found and it is also admitted that the premiums for these policies were paid out of the coparcenary funds and that entries have been made in the Hindu undivided family accounts in regard to the payments. The deceased was a member of a coparcenary, the other coparcener being his son. The widow, who is the accountable person, in computing the net value of the estate of the deceased, had treated the sum of Rs. 92, 520, which is the total value of the policies, as belonging to the Hindu undivided family

(3.) IN the foregoing circumstances, we answer the reference in favour of the accountable person with costs. Counsel's fee, Rs. 250.