CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. R M SUKHADVALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this departmental reference, the Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law under section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question is :

(2.) COUNSEL are agreed that, in view of our court's judgment in the case of Jehangir Mahomedali chagla v. M. V. Subrahmanian, Addl. First Asst. CED [1985] 155 ITR 637, it has to be held that the value of unquoted shares of a company could be valued in accordance with rule 1d of the wealth-tax Rules, 1957, for the purpose of estate duty also. The only dispute that remains and which is involved in the question is as to the balance-sheet to be taken into account for the purpose. According to the accountable person, the latest balance-sheet available at the time of the death was the balance-sheet of the company as on June 30,1969, whetheras, according to the department, the death having taken place on September 30,1969, it was likely that certain things had happened during the course of those three months which ought to be taken into account. In our judgment, this question is only of academic interest in view of our conclusion that the valuation of unquoted shares for the purpose of estate duty also can be and should be made in accordance with rule 1d of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. We say so as Explanation 1 to rule 1d itself makes it clear that the valuation in accordance with rule 1d is to be made on the basis of the balance-sheet drawn up on a date immediately preceding the valuation date (in the present case, it will be the date of death ). Incidentally, this is also the view taken by the Karnataka High court in the case CED v. J. Krishna Murthy [1974] 96 ITR 87. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person.

(3.) NO order as to costs.