CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. BIPINCHANDRA N PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question of law involved in these four ED references at the instance of the Department is common. For the sake of convenience, all these references are disposed of together. The questions of law referred to this Court in the individual references are : Estate Duty Reference No. 21 of 1976 :

(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be considered?" Estate Duty Reference No. 34 of 1976:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, besides strongly relying on the order of the Tribunal, submitted that the Supreme Court decision was not applicable in this case and, in any event, the ratio thereof supported the view taken by the Tribunal. In this context, counsel referred to the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment. Reference was also made to an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Gangappa Cables Ltd. (1978) CTR (AP) 332 : (1979) 116 ITR 778 (AP), in which it was held that, in a case where there was practically all material necessary for deciding the additional ground taken before the Tribunal for the first time, the Tribunal was justified in admitting such a ground and that, the Supreme Court decision in Addl. CIT v, Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (supra), was not applicable in such a case. The special leave petition filed by the Department against the Andhra Pradesh decision, it was pointed out, was rejected by the Supreme Court. Unlike under the IT Act, under the ED Act, the Tribunal had, it was stated, even powers of enhancement under S. 63(5) so much so that the powers of the Tribunal in an appeal under S. 63(1) of the ED Act were conterminous with those of the Appellate CED and the Asstt. CED.