CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SATISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953. The following question has been referred to us for our answer :

(2.) THE brief facts are these I One Shri Sunder Lal died on 16th February, 1966. THE deceased was the karta of his HUF. THEre was a residential house at Hardoi which belonged to the HUF. THE accountable person did not show any value of the house on the ground that it was exempt. THE Assistant Controller estimated the value of the house at Rs. 82,000 and held that since the house belonged to the HUF the share of the deceased and his wife to the extent of Rs. 41,000 was exempt and the balance of Rs. 41,000 being the share of the lineal descendants was includible in the estate of the deceased for rate purposes.

(3.) IN our opinion, the decisive words in Section 33(1) are "which passes on his death". Section 39(1) lays down that the value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cesser of a coparcenary interest in any joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law which ceases on the death of a member thereof shall be the principal value of the share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. IN this view of the matter, the property which could have passed on his death would be the principal value of his share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. The Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the matter but merely relied upon Clause (n) of Section 33(1) in isolation without focussing its attention on the principal Sub-section (1) itself. Therefore, our answer to the aforesaid question is as follows :