VCNUGOPA Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions of law have been referred to this Court under section 64 (\) of the ESTATE DUTY ACT, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, at the instance of the applicant representing the estate of late K. C. Krishna Murthy:

(2.) The relevant facts as set out in the Statement of the Case by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are as follows:one K. G. Krishna Murthy who was the kartha of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three sons, died on 23-10-1971.

(3.) The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty determined the total value of the Hindu joint family properties, of which the deceased was the kartha, at Rs- 2,66,705/- and determined the deceased's l/4th share at Rs. 66, 676/-. The balance of Rs. 2,00, 028/-representing the value of the shares of the lineal descendants was aggregated under section 34 (1) (c) for rate purposes. The properties of the joint family valued as above, included a residential house valued at Rs. 88, OOO/-. The said house is situate in Secund- erabad, the population of which exceeds ten thousand. The accountable person contended that while determining the total value of the joint family properties, the entire sum of Rs. 88. 000/-representing the value of the residential house, was exempt under section33 (1) (n) of the Act. It was further contended that for ascertaining the lineal descendants' share for the purpose of aggregation, the entire value of the residential house should be exempted under section 33 (1) (n) of the Act. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Controller on the ground that exemption was due only in respect of the value of l/4th share of the deceased in the residential house, and accordingly exempted a sum of Rs. 22, 000/-representing the value of the deceased's share in the residential house of the joint family, and declined to exempt the lineal descendants' share in the residential house for the purpose of aggregation. On appeals preferred by the accountable person to the Appellate Controller and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, the view of the Assistant Controller was upheld.