SATYANARAYAN SARAF Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER A WARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule involves the construction of Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) One Hanuman Prasad Saraf, who was governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law and was the karta of the Hindu undivided family, died on January 21, 1961. He was survived by the following members of his family : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_813_CALWN80_1976Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The petitioner, Satyanarayan Saraf, who is the son of Hanuman Prasad, is the accountable person in respect of the estate of the deceased within the meaning of the Act. The respondent No. 1, Assistant Controller, 'A' Ward, Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax Circle, by his order dated August 31, 1964, assessed the principal value of the estate of the deceased, Hanuman Prasad, at Rs. 3,00,416 in respect of his l/3rcl interest ceasing on his death in the joint family property of the said Hindu undivided family including a gift of Rs. 12,540 and determined Rs. 2,01,952.26 as the amount payable on account of estate duty. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Calcutta. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 served a notice upon the petitioner proposing to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. It was alleged that in assessing the duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased, Hanuman Prasad, his 1/3rd interest in the undivided family had been taken into consideration but for the purpose of aggregation under Section 34(1)(c), the interest of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property had not been considered. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, by his order dated January 7, 1965, aggregated the 2/3rds share of Satyanarayan and his son, Bhagawati Prasad, with the 1/3rd interest of the deceased and enhanced the duty, overruling the contention of the petitioner that the 1/9th share of the son's wife of the deceased, that is, the wife of Satyanarayan, who was not a lineal descendant, should have been excluded for the purpose of aggregation. The relevant portion of the order of respondent No. 1 under Section 61 is as follows: