CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. DULICHAND CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion :

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : While computing the amount of estate duty payable by the accountable person in respect of the estate of the deceased, Shri Raichand Chopra, the Asst. Controller, rejected the claim of the accountable person that immovable properties owned by the HUF were partitioned amongst the members of the HUF. THE Asst. Controller held that the properties comprised in the partition deed continued to belong to the HUF of the deceased, his wife and five sons. On appeal, the Appellate Controller upheld the finding of the Asst. Controller. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held on the basis of the material on record that there was a severance of the status and that the deceased continued to remain co-owner of all the property including the property given away to his four sons. THE Tribunal further held, following the decision in Satyanarayan Saraf v. Asst. Controller [1978] 111 ITR 432 (Cal), that for rate purposes, a notional partition of the smaller HUF was also contemplated whereby the wives of the sons of the deceased would also be entitled to share equally with the sons of the deceased. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Department sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Department that the aforesaid questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion.

(3.) FOR all these reasons, our answer to question No. 1 referred to us is in the affirmative and against the Department. As regards question No. 2, our answer to that question is in the negative and in favour of the Department.