CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. MANIK CHAND BARARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The question referred to us for our opinion is as follows :

(2.) THE facts are that there, was a partnership firm by the name of M/s. Sukhlal Manik Chand. THE partners of the firm were Rikhab Chand Bararia and Sukhlal Manik Chand. THE former died on January 9, 1965. On the death of Rikhab Chand Bararia, notice under Section 58(2) of the Act was issued to Sukhlal Manik Chand who was considered the accountable person. THE said accountable person filed a return. THE Assistant. Controller of Estate Duty assessed the estate passing on the death of Rikhab Chand Bararia. Besides other assets, the Assistant Controller, added the value of the goodwill of the firm also to the value of the estate passing on the death. THE accountable person being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant: Controller filed appeal in which he contended, besides other matters, that the firm had no goodwill and that the value thereof could not be added to the estate passing on the death of the deceased. THE Appellate Controller rejected the stand of the assessee that goodwill was not an asset which could pass on the death of a person, but modified the quantum thereof. THE assessee as well as the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Controller filed separate appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. THE Appellate Tribunal, on the basis of a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain [1974] 96 ITR 303, held that the Assistant Controller and the Controller were not justified in including the value of the goodwill in the total estate of the deceased. This finding having been recorded, the Tribunal did not enter into the merits of the appeal filed by the Department relating to the value of the goodwill or of the contention of the assessee in regard to the existence and value of the goodwill. THE Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the. Tribunal thereafter got this reference made to us and the Tribunal has referred the question for our opinion which we have quoted earlier.