CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SUNANDA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the CED, the following question of law has been referred to this court :

(2.) The facts of this case are briefly stated hereafter: "The deceased, Sri Sushil Kumar Roychowdhury, died intestate on November 1, 1963. The agricultural land of the deceased in excess of 25 acres was acquired by the Government of West Bengal in 1955. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty observed that the compensation from the Government of West Bengal had not been settled and that compensation roll had not been prepared and the matter was still pending in the High Court. He estimated the compensation at Rs. 25,000 payable by the Government of West Bengal on acquisition of the agricultural land and included the same, in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. In appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty excluded the estimated compensation as no compensation roll had been prepared even after ten years of the acquisition.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, it was urged by the departmental representative that the deceased was entitled to compensation on the acquisition of the agricultural land. The learned counsel for the accountable person pointed out that even at the time of hearing of the appeal, no compensation roll had been prepared and that on the basis of the decision in the case of CWT v. Mahatab [1970] 78 ITR 214 (Cal), the deceased was not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal following the decision in the case of CWT v. Mahatab did not find any force in the contention of the departmental representative. The Tribunal, therefore, affirmed the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty.