KHATHIJA BEEVI Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ASST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Assistant CED refusing to rectify the assessment. The matter relates to the estate of the late Abdul Aziz. The accountable person claimed that a sum of Rs. 27,500 being a debt due by the deceased to one Natesa Padayachi was allowable as a deduction in computing the principal value of the estate. That question came up for consideration before this Court in T. C. O. P. No. 173 of 1977. The Court observed that learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to show that the sum was actually a debt due to Natesa Padayachi by the deceased. At the same time, this Court observed :

(2.) THE suit was actually decreed on 30th Sept., 1978. Thereupon, the assessee made an application on 17th Oct., 1978, seeking deduction of the amount decreed. By order dt. 24th March, 1979, the Asstt. CED said that since the evidence to revise the assessment was not filed within five years from the date of the assessment order, the request to revise the assessment order cannot be considered. The contention of the petitioner is that since the decree itself was passed by the Court beyond five years from the date of assessment order, the bar of limitation ought not to be applied in this case. The Revenue resisted this by pointing out that the High Court had only stated that the accountable person may approach the authority in the manner contemplated by law and as S. 61 of the ED Act provided a period of limitation of five years, the accountable person's application was not required to be considered. I see no force in this objection of the Revenue. After all, the debt having been decreed, the Revenue cannot dispute the fact that the accountable person is entitled to the deduction. The Revenue is not expected to take a technical plea against such a deduction on the ground of bar of limitation. It is obvious that the accountable person could not produce the decree within five years as the decree itself came into existence after five years. In such circumstances, there have been instances where the CBDT itself has instructed the ITO to waive the bar of limitation and allow the relief.