GUNDA BHASKARA RAO Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE CBDT referred for our opinion the following question, viz. :

(2.) THIS question arises in respect of the estate of one Gunda Eswaraiah, who died on 6th June, 1958. The deceased, representing his HUF consisting of himself and his son, was a partner with another person, in a firm which had contracts with the Garrison Engineers. The deceased was the financing partner and, according to the terms of the partnership deed, all the assets and liabilities of the firm belonged to the deceased except to the extent of the capital share of profits of the other partner. The contract with the Garrison Engineers stood in the name of the deceased. At the date of death of the deceased a sum of Rs. 2,91,000 was due to be paid by the military authorities in respect of works done by the firm. They insisted on the production of a succession certificate before making the payment due from them and the applicant, therefore, spent Rs. 17,688 on Court fees for obtaining the certificate. The Asstt. CED was of the view that under S. 50 of the Act, Court fees could be deducted from the estate duty payable on the death of the deceased, only to the extent of the amounts paid in respect of such estate of the deceased as was chargeable to estate duty. He accordingly computed the deductions permissible under S. 50 in respect of the Court fees as follows :

(3.) MR . Mallikarjuna Rao contends that under S. 34 of the ED Act, the entire estate has to be aggregated in order to fix the rate in respect of the interest of the deceased and, if this is so, the Court fee paid to recover the amount due to the joint family should also be deducted. Secondly, he contends that the word "leviable" used in S. 50 would indicate an intention on the part of the legislature to include the entire estate for the purposes of relief under that section. We cannot accept these contentions as being warranted either under S. 34 or S. 50 of the Act. The relevant portions of S. 34 and S. 50 read as follows :