PANKUMARI KOCHAR SMT Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Central Board of Direct Taxes has referred the following three questions for our opinion :

(2.) THE facts leading to the formulation of these three questions are:

(3.) AS regards the money-lending business carried on in the name of the accountable person, it was claimed that Smt. Pankumari Bai came from a rich family and had received large sums as gifts from her parents from time to time. It was accordingly contended that the capital invested in the money-lending business was her " stridhan " and so the same could not be, considered as passing on the death of the deceased. It was, however, found by the ASsistant Controller that Smt. Pankumari had received a sum of Rs. 25,000 from her father-in-law out of the Hindu undivided family funds. He further found that Smt. Pankumari had no separate money-lending business as she had no separate licence in her name. The accounts relating to the money-lending business were also found not reliable. Besides, it was found that some of the loans were advanced in the joint names of the deceased and his wife. For these reasons given in the order, the ASsistant Controller held that the money-lending business belonged to the deceased himself and accordingly included the sums invested in that business in the estate of the deceased.