CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY its order dated February 27, 1982, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "d", New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the point that the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty should recompute the share of lineal descendants in accordance with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Satyanarayan Saraf v. Asst. CED [1978] 111 ITR 432 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that the share of lineal descendants should be computed after excluding the shares of the wives of the coparceners for the purposes of aggregation under the Estate Duty Act ?"

(2.) A brief statement of facts would enable us to properly appreciate the question referred by the Tribunal. When Jamuna Das of District Gohana-Bhiwani (Haryana) died on May 17, 1976, he left behind some properties. The properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family were valued at Rs. 3,66,205. 1/4th share of the deceased was taken at Rs. 91,551 and subjected to assessment under the Act. Rs. 2,74,654 were taken as the share of the lineal descendants of Jamuna Das and it was added only for rate purposes. The assessment was framed under Section 58 (3) of the Act. Being the accountable person, Shri Jugal Kishore filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the plea raised on behalf of the accountable persons that the share of the deceased should be computed after excluding the share of the wives of Shri Jamuna Das, Mahavir Parshad and Puran Chand. On that premise, the appellate authority directed the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to compute the shares of the lineal descendants in accordance with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Satyanarayan Saraf v. Asst CED [1978] 111 ITR 432. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the appellate authority was dismissed by the Tribunal on February 10, 1981.

(3.) Shri R. P. Sawhney argued that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have acted illegally in passing the impugned orders because the shares of the lineal descendants of Jamuna Das only could have been taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the rate of duty and not the so-called shares of the wives of the coparceners. Shri Sawhney argued that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Satyanarayan Saraf v. Asst. CED [1978] 111 ITR 432 does not lay down the correct proposition of law.