CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. B R SANTAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a departmental appeal arising out of the order of the Appellate Controller in respect of the estate duty assessment on Smt. B. R. Santamani, accountable person for the estate of the deceased Shri P. R. Kesavamurthy who died on 23-5-1979.

(2.) The decease was an employee of the RBI and was a member of Reserve Bank Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the bank). The dispute relates to the amount of Rs. 10,000 received by the accountable person in her capacity as wife and nominee of the deceased from the relief fund constituted by the said Co-operative Bank. It is seen from the copies filed of the relevant bye-laws that this amount was paid by the bank of collecting Rs. 10 from each member on the death of one of them. The copy of the relevant resolution reads as under :

(3.) The learned departmental representative relied upon the grounds in the departmental appeal. He sought to distinguish the facts of the case before the andhra Pradesh High Court. The learned representative for the accountable person, on the other hand, claimed that it is not property which passes on death under section 6 as the property was not in existence even as found by the first appellate authority on the date of death. He also urged that it does not fall under any of the deeming clauses. He claimed that is was not open to the deceased to indicated any persons other than members of the family. Again, no separate nomination was necessary for the purpose of death relief. The same nomination as for provident fund was given effect to. This shows that he did not exercise any independent discretion in this regard. He also claimed that the accountable person, nominee or any other person had no legal right to enforce the payment as this was not a matter of trust vis-a-vis the beneficiary in absence of privity of contract. He alternatively claimed that even if it were to be deemed to pass on death, the accountable person should be given the benefit of section 34(3) of the Act whereby this would have to be treated as a separate estate.