CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SURESH KUMAR MIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : one Jaisukhlal died on December 4, 1975, leaving behind him five sons and his wife. THE dispute relates to the determination of the rate of estate duty payable on the property passing on the death of the deceased. One of the sons of the deceased, Jayantilal, had pre-deceased him and Smt. Labhu Ben, w/o Jayantilal, became entitled to the share that would have fallen to Jayantilal had he been alive. THE Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, acting under Section 34(1)(c) of the Act, aggregated the share falling to Smt. Labhu Ben for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty payable by the accountable person. On appeal, the Appellate Controller upheld the contention urged on behalf of the accountable person that the widow of Jayantilal, the pre-deceased son of Jaisukhlal, was not a lineal descendant of Jaisukhlal and, therefore, her interest in the coparcenary property should be excluded for the purpose of aggregation. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, the Revenue preferred an appeal, but that appeal was dismissed. THE Revenue, therefore, sought reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.

(3.) FOR all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.