CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. KUSUM RANI CHOWDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this reference are that Komal Chand died on December 10, 1975. He was adopted by Nathu Ram on August 30, 1968, by a registered adoption deed. Nathuram also died on May 27, 1974, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Maharani, and the adopted son, Komal Chand. In the adoption deed dated August 30, 1968, it was stipulated that the property of Nathuram would pass to Komal Chand only on the death of Nathu Ram and his wife, Smt. Maharani. The question arose whether Komal Chand had any right in the property left by his adoptive father so as to be subject to estate duty. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim on two grounds that adoption was completed on August 30, 1968, when Komal Chand became a member of the joint family of his adoptive father, Nathu Ram, and Komal Chand's right could not be curtailed and, as such, he had a share in the family property and hence he was assessed only on l/3rd at Rs. 1,15,876 and Komal Chand had equal right in the property from his adoptive father and adoptive mother, Smt. Maharani.

(3.) THUS, the whole issue in the reference has totally changed. The question will now arise whether the so called adoption deed can at all be acted upon or not as the same appears to be against the provisions of law, i.e., Section 10(iv) of the Act of 1956. However, Clause (iv) of Section 10 of the Act of 1956 contemplates that adoption of more than 15 years old can be given in case there is custom or usage applicable to the parties. But since this provision of law was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, therefore, there is no such finding on this aspect also. If any finding is given in these proceedings, perhaps it might affect the rights of the parties in any other litigation and may cause greater hardship. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the provisions referred to above.