LAWS(APH)-1968-10-7

JAISHANKAR GOWD Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

Decided On October 23, 1968
JAISHANKAR GOWD (BY GUARDIAN) Appellant
V/S
CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, has referred the following question for our opinion, viz. :

(2.) THE facts as ascertained from the statement of the case are as follows. THE deceased, one Lingampeta Raja Gowd, died on 8th January, 1954, leaving two daughters, Manikamma and Tajbai, both married, the latter to one Somalingam. Tajbai and Somalingam had a minor son, Jaishankar Gowd, who is the person accountable for the estate of the deceased, under the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter called " the Act").

(3.) THIS document was not even attested by the deceased. The amount was received in cash before the Registrar. Thereafter, the house was re-purchased by Tajbai. There is nothing to show that the consideration flowed from the father, the deceased. On November 18, 1953, Tajbai mortgaged the property (annexure " G ") for a sum of O.S. Rs. 20,000 to one S. G. Ramireddi, through her husband, Somalingam, as her power of attorney. In the recitals, it was stated that Tajbai " singularly and exclusively holds her possession over the double-storeyed plastered house No. 553, Circle No. 2, Ward " C ", block No. 1 situated at Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad ". It was found that an amount of Rs. 15,833 was utilised for the deceased's business in abkari contracts, and the amount was credited in the books to the capital account which the deceased has maintained in the name of his son-in-law Who held a general power of attorney for the deceased and was looking after his business. From the fact that Rs. 15,833 out of Rs. 20,000 obtained from the mortgage of Tajbai's house was utilised in the business of the deceased, both the Assistant Controller as well as the Central Board have inferred that the earlier purchase of the land and the construction of the building, for which the deceased had paid, was benami in the name of Tajbai and, secondly, that Section 10 of the Act is applicable to this case. On these grounds the property at Feelkhana was held to be part of the estate of the deceased.