PADAMPAT SINGHANIA Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE dispute relates to the estate of the deceased, Shyam Hari Singhania, who died on the 3rd December, 1960. At the time of his death he owned separate and self-acquired property, and was also a member of a HUF of of which Sir Padampat Singhania, his father, was the karta. Shyam Hari Singhania had no issue, and left behind him a widow, Smt. Usha Devi, and his mother, Lady Ansuiya Devi (class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act). On the 1st August, 1961, Lady Ansuiya Devi filed a return showing the net value of the estate as Rs. 11,63,629. Later on, the widow, Smt. Usha Devi, also filed a return on 16th August, 1963, at the request of the department. Sir Padampat Singhania did not file any return at all in respect of the estate of the deceased. On the 14th August, 1969, a notice under Section 58(2) of the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued by the Assistant Controller, and the assessment completed on the 27th June, 1972. Although no formal notice was. given to Sir Padampat Singhania, who was the karta of the HUF of which the deceased was a coparcener, the Assistant Controller passed an assessment order treating him also as one of the accountable persons. As in the present case we are not concerned with the valuation of the estate or the estate duty imposed thereon, it is not necessary to state these facts. An appeal was filed by Sir Padampat Singhania as karta of the HUF, Lady Ansuiya Devi and Smt. Usha Devi. THE appellate authority remanded the matter to the Assistant Controller, inter alia, on the ground that the case could not be properly disposed of without notice to Sir Padampat Singhania, who was the karta of the HUF. All the three, persons, who were appellants before the Assistant Commissioner, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged that the assessments were barred by time in view of Section 73A, inasmuch as no proceedings for the levy of estate duty had been commenced within five years of the death of the deceased. It was also contended that the AAC erred in sending back the case for starting proceedings against Sir Padampat Singhania as karta of the HUF as proceedings against him could not be started after the expiry of five years as set down in Section 73A. Both these con tentions have been rejected by the Tribunal. We will deal with the questions seriatim.

(3.) IN the present case, however, we think that it is not necessary to decide the question as to when proceedings for levy of estate duty commence under the E.D. Act, for reasons to be stated hereafter. As noticed earlier, Smt Usha Devi filed a return on 16th August, 1963, in response to a request made by the department. Although the provision under which the request was made to Smt. Usha Devi has not been stated in the order of the Tribunal or the Appellate Controller, it is apparent that such a request could be made only under Section 55, for, it is under this provision that the Controller can ask an accountable person, and certain other categories of persons to deliver a statement of particulars and accounts, etc., which may be required by the Controller relating to any property which in his opinion formed part of an estate in respect of which estate duty was leviable. As the return was filed on 16th August, 1963, the request to do so on behalf of the department must have been made earlier. Thus, the request on behalf of the department, which in the circumstances is referable to Section 55, was made much before the expiry of five years from the date of the death of Shyam Hari Singhania. Now, a requisition under Section 55 is made for purposes of valuing the estate of the deceased for purposes of levy of estate duty. The word "levy" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. National Tobacco Co of INdia Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 2563, as embracing within it the process of assessment and also the imposition of tax. The requisition made under Section 55 is one for assessing the value of the estate of the deceased. Once such a requisition has been made from an accountable person proceedings for levying estate duty can be said to have been started by the Assistant Controller. On this view the estate duty proceedings were not barred by limitation.