CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SHANKAR KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench "A", Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE facts as found from the statement of the case and the assessment order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and the Tribunal may be briefly stated so far as they are relevant.

(3.) THE Department appealed before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal also held that the investment stood in the name of the accountable person. THE interest on the investments was too remote a benefit and that for attracting the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the benefit to the donor had to accrue from the subject-matter of the gifted property. THE Tribunal relied on the decisions in CED v. Chandravadan Amratlal Bhatt [1969] 73 ITR 416 (Guj) and George Da Costa v. CED [1967] 63 ITR 497 (SC) and held that the right to receive the interest exclusively belonged to the accountable person and the mere fact that the accountable person sought to put it in a joint account with the deceased would not amount to the deceased deriving any benefit from the gifted property. For this purpose, the Tribunal also relied on the decision in M. Ranganatha Sastri v. CED [1966] 60 ITR 783 (Mad) and the Tribunal also held that the reservation of benefit to the donor should be one enforceable by him. THE Tribunal also held that in the instant case, the deceased enjoyed no benefit from the gifted property and had no right to receive the interest. THE Tribunal, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act were not applicable in the case of the accountable person. A copy of the order of the Tribunal has been annexed and marked as annexure C forming part of. the statement of the case.