CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Estate Duty Act, 1953, has been repealed by Parliament. However, the remnants of various cases continue. This case is an instance. THE Controller of Estate Duty has filed this petition under Section 64(3) of the Act. He prays that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court :

(2.) SO far as the first question is concerned, it deserves notice that the Tribunal has found it reasonable to apply a multiple of 10 in view of the rate of interest which prevailed on the material date, viz., November 9, 1982. Mr. Sawhney has referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. Prem Nath Anand [1977] 108 ITR 549. In this case, it is undoubtedly correct that a multiple of 12 had been applied. However, the rate of interest, etc., in March 1973, was much lower than in November, 1982. The Tribunal has taken the view that the rate of interest on long term fixed deposit is a relevant factor for adopting the multiplier. The view taken by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It has committed no error. It cannot be said that the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiple of 10.

(3.) ON a perusal of the file, we find that the Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals) had noticed the order passed by the assessing authority and observed that the point regarding deduction had been "conceded in favour of the accountable person". It was further observed that it was "just by omission that deduction has not been allowed out of the assets of the Hindu undivided family . . ." The order of the Controller was upheld by the Tribunal. Still further, it may be observed that the Tribunal was concerned with the valuation of interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property. It was considering the matter under Section 39(1). The interest of daughters could not have been excluded.