SURUMBAYI AMMAL Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act relating to the estate of one Ramaswami Chettiar, who died on April 2, 1963. The widow filed a return which, among others, included a sum of Rs. 4,23,943 as the value of the one -sixth share which the deceased held in six firms. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty considered that the firms in which the deceased was a partner had goodwill and that the value of his share in the goodwill should also be included in the total value of the estate. He, accordingly, proceeded to value the goodwill in each of the firms on the super -profits basis and added a sum of Rs, 53,700 on this account. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and the Tribunal confirmed this order of the Assistant Controller.

(2.) AT the instance of the accountable person, the following question is referred:

(3.) AT the outset, we would like to make it clear that the learned counsel for the revenue objected to our going into the question as to whether there was any goodwill at all at the time when Ramaswami Chettiar died as the question that is referred to us did not cover that issue. He also contended that the question did not cover the other point argued by the learned counsel for the accountable person that on the dissolution of the firms, the goodwill ceased to exist and no question of valuation arises. According to the learned counsel, the only question that could be gone into in the reference was relating to the valuation of the goodwill. There is great force in this contention of the learned counsel. But, having regard to the order of the Tribunal and the points raised before the Tribunal, we do not con - sider that this question as to the method of valuation could at all be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal, The only point that was pressed before the Tribunal was that the old firms had no goodwill at all and even if they had, on dissolution, it ceased to have any value. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accountable person, what was intended to be covered by the question was whether there was any goodwill at all for the firms and whether there was any passing of that goodwill on the death of Ramaswami Chettiar. We, accordingly, proceed to consider the question as covering the points raised by the learned counsel for the accountable person.