FAIZUNNISSA BEGAM Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE-DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the case from the file of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Thanjavur, in No. S. 704/TNJ/dated February 6, 1985, issued under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from taking any action under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act THE petitioner's father, the late Haji M. A. Sathar, was an assessee under the Income-tax and the Wealth-tax Acts. He died on August 16, 1970, leaving behind his wife, the petitioner, his sister and brother as legal heirs.

(2.) THE value of the estate was nearly Rs. 9, 00, 000. THE mother of the petitioner being one of the legal heirs filed the estate duty return under the Estate Duty Act in her capacity as an accountable person. THE respondent made certain additions, disallowed the claim for certain deductions to the return figure of the estate and fixed the principal value at Rs. 9, 13, 692 in his order of assessment dated January 31, 1974. THE accountable person filed an appeal before the Appellate Controller against the disallowance of the claim for deduction.

(3.) THE authorised representative also appeared before the Commissioner of Income-tax on October 4, 1975, for discussion in this matter consequent on which he filed the copy of the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty dated August 27, 1976, and the order of the Tribunal dated December 30, 1977, and drew the attention of the authority with regard to the scope of the remand order. However, the petitioner received a letter from the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated October 30, 1985, refusing to interfere in the matter and directing the accountable person to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Controller if she is aggrieved by the assessment. At that stage, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner on December 13, 1985It is the contention-of the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal is very clear in restricting the scope of the remand to a particular property and the respondent is entitled to make reassessment only on that basis. It is the contention of learned counsel that the proposed assessment with regard to all the matters which had already become final will be clearly barred by limitation and it is not open to the respondent to do so. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the Tribunal had no right to restrict the scope of remand and the assessment that is to be made now will be one under section 58 of the Act and, therefore, there is no period of limitation. THE respondent's counsel also places reliance on certain decisions of this courtBefore considering the authorities referred to by learned counsel for the respondent, it is necessary to decide the question whether the order of the Tribunal is restricted in its scope. I have already extracted the relevant passage in the order of the Tribunal.