K HILAL Vs. APPELLATE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent (Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Southern Zone, Madras) dated 31st March, 1975, levying a penalty of Rs. 34, 000 under s. 60(1)(c) of the E. D. Act, 1953, for concealing the particulars of the property of the deceased and deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof THE petitioner's father, one G. S. A. Kareem, died in or about December, 1970. Even before his death, on March 1, 1970, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son and daughter, in respect of house sites in 14, Balakrishna Pillai Road, Teynampet, Madras, also known as 85-A, Mount Road, Madras-18. THE petitioner herein, as an accountable person, filed a return to the Asst. CED in respect of the properties left by the deceased. In the return filed by him, he gave the value of the property at No. 85-A, Mount Road, Madras-18, as Rs. 1, 72, 600. This value was returned on the basis of the approved valuer's report fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 7, 000 per ground. THE Asst. CED, Madras, rejected the value of the land at Rs. 7, 000 per ground, and adopted the value at Rs. 11, 000 per ground and completed the assessment on that basis. THE petitioner took the matter in appeal to the first respondent contending that the value of Rs. 11, 000 per ground, adopted by the second respondent, was not justified

(2.) WHILE the said appeal was pending, the said vacant land in 85-A, Mount Road, Madras, was sold at the rate of Rs. 37, 000 per ground in the year 1973. When the appeal was taken up, the sale of the property at Rs. 37, 000 per ground by the petitioner was brought to the notice of the Appellate Controller. Based on the said information, he issued a notice for enhancement of the value and, after hearing the objections of the petitioner, adopted the valuation of Rs. 37, 000 per ground. That enhanced valuation adopted by the first respondent has not been taken in appeal before the Tribunal and that has become finalThe first respondent, however, after disposing of the appeal, issued a notice under s. 60(1)(c) to the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be levied under that provision for concealing the particulars of the property of the deceased and for deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The petitioner made representation to the said notice and contended that there is no concealment of any particulars, that all particulars had been furnished in the return, that even the value of Rs. 7, 600 per ground given in his return was based on concrete materials, such as the approved valuer's report, the value given in the land acquisition proceedings in relation to a portion of the same property at an earlier stage, and also the market value fixed under the Urban Land Tax Act by the urban land tax authorities, that, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be a deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and that the value given by him is in fact a fair market value. However, the appellate authority felt that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of the particulars of the property of the deceased and of deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, and levied a penalty of Rs. 34, 000. Since there is no statutory appeal against the order passed by the first respondent levying penalty in the course of the appeal proceedings, the petitioner has come before this court invoking its jurisdiction under art. 226 of the Constitution of India

(3.) THE contention put forward by the petitioner is that the property in question, which was the subject-matter before the first respondent, and in respect of which the complaint of "concealment" is made, was not the property of the deceased as it had been transferred by him, under a settlement in favour of his son and daughter, that on the date of the death of the deceased, the deceased did not die possessed of the property, and that on that day the property was the property of the settlees and not of the deceased