CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order we are disposing of the petition filed under Section 64 (3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, to make a reference of the questions of law framed by the petitioner to the High Court for its opinion : In response to the notice issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty under Section 59 of the Act, Shri Gurbachan Singh and Shri Jas-want Singh, accountable persons of the late Shri Devi Singh filed a statement of account on July 18, 1977. By an order dated July 30, 1977, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty declared the dutiable estate of the deceased at Rs. 2,41,861 and directed the issue of demand notice and challan and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 60 (1) (a ). Shri Gurbachan Singh, one of the accountable persons, filed an appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and challenged the order of the Assistant Controller on the ground that the notice issued by the Assistant Controller was barred by limitation and also on the ground that reasonable opportunity was not granted to the accountable person. The appellate authority rejected the first ground of challenge but upheld the plea of Gurbachan Singh that reasonable opportunity was not given to him. Accordingly, it remanded the case to the Assistant Controller to pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity to the accountable persons. The order of the appellate authority was challenged by Shri Gurbachan Singh before the Appellate Tribunal. Vide its order dated March 3, 1983, the Tribunal accepted the contention raised on behalf of Gurbachan Singh that the proceedings were barred by time. It held that the proceedings under Section 59 can be treated to have commenced only when notice is served upon the accountable persons and mere issuance of notice is not sufficient.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 64 (1) of the Act before the Tribunal for reference of the question of law to the High Court. After hearing the representatives of the parties, the Tribunal rejected the application by holding that no referable question of law arises in the case.

(3.) FROM the record of the case, it is borne out that Devi Singh had died on April 26, 1972. Notice under Section 59 (a) was issued on March 25, 1977, to Gurbachan Singh. Notices to other two accoutable persons were issued on July 11, 1977. The appellate authority, before whom the respondent Gurbachan Singh had filed appeal against the order of the Assistant Controller, rejected his plea that the initiation of proceedings was barred by the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73a of the Act. However, the Tribunal upheld this objection. The point which requires consideration by this court is what is the point of time when the proceeding under Section 59 (a) is deemed to have commenced. In our considered opinion, the following referable question of law arises in this case :