CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SIVASUBRAMANIAN K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1933, the following question has been referred to this court:

(2.) THE estate duty assessment came to be made on the death of one Smt. K. Vijayammal on 1st April, 1970. She died possessed of 43'06 acres of land in two villages, viz., Vadakaravayal and Rajappianchavadi, in Mannargudi Taluk, Thanjavur District. In the return submitted for the E.D. assessment, the value of these lands was shown to be Rs. 95,170. For the assessment year 1970-71, a certificate from the village karnam regarding the value of these lands had been produced before the WTO, and the certificate showed their value to be Rs. 1,35,980. THE chartered accountant, appearing 'on behalf of the accountable person, stated before the Asst. Controller that the certificate given by the karnam did not represent the real market value of the lands. THE Asst. Controller overruled the objection and included a sum of Rs. 1,35,980 as the value of these lands, as against Rs. 95,170 admitted in the return. Against the order of the Asst. Controller, there was an appeal and the Appellate Controller took into account the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, which was amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. He worked out the value of the surplus lands in the hands of the deceased to be Rs. 39,450 and substituted this with reference to the excess area. As regards the area which was covered within the ceiling limit, he does not appear to have made any change in the valuation. Against the order of the Appellate Controller, the Asst. Controller filed an appeal before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal held that the value of the lands as taken by the Appellate Controller was quite fair and reasonable. In the view of the Tribunal in respect of the lands in excess of the ceiling limits, the deceased was not the owner of the land and had merely a right to receive'compensation. As this right to receive compensation had been taken as the basis for valuation of the agricultural lands held by the deceased in excess of the ceiling limit, the Tribunal upheld the valuation as adopted by the Appellate Controller. THE question already set out is the one that arises out of this order of the Tribunal.

(3.) SUB-section (3) of Section 18 provides :