ESTATE OF KISANDAS Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the accountable person, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the accountable person contended that the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the firm had goodwill and that the earning of substantial profits is not a relevant consideration for ascertaining whether the firm had goodwill. Our attention in this connection was also drawn to the decisions in A. K. D. Dharmaraja v. CED [1978] 111 ITR 72 (Mad), Seethalakshmi Ammal v. CED [1966] 61 ITR 317 (Mad), CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty and CIT v. Official Liquidator [1985] 151 ITR 781 (Mad). On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal had taken into account the fact that the firm had been carrying on business for about five years at the time of the death of the partner and that it had also earned substantial profits and that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the value of the goodwill based on those considerations was quite justified and proper. Attention was also invited in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper. v. Union of India