CONTROLLER OF EASTATE DUTY Vs. HULASCHAND BAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference arises out of assessment to estate duty of the estate of late Punam Chand Baid, who died on September 26, 1960. The facts found or which are matters on record are, inter alia, as follows; During his lifetime the deceased made a gift of Rs. 1,50,000 on August 25, 1955, to one Hulaschand Baid, the accountable person, by entries in the books of account of his money-lending business transferring the amount in favour of the donee. The amount remained in the said business thereafter to the credit of the donee till the death of the deceased. On February 12, 1956, the deceased adopted the donee as his son, after which the business was carried on by a HUF consisting of the deceased and the donee.

(2.) In assessing estate duty, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that as the deceased was.a coparcener and the karta of the HUF, he was not entirely excluded from the possession and enjoyment of the amount of the gift. He also found that the loan was carrying interest at the rate of 4.1/2% which was lower than the usual market rate. He concluded that bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property given in gift was not retained by the donee to the entire exclusion of the donor and Section 10 of the E.D. Act was attracted. He included the amount in computing the principal value of the estate.

(3.) On appeal preferred by the accountable person against the said assessment, the Appellate Controller held that though the donee assumed possession and enjoyment of the gifted property, the donor was not actually excluded from the benefit and enjoyment of the same as the amount retained in the business benefited both the donor and the donee. He upheld the inclusion of the said amount in the value of the estate.