CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. HARI LAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) IN this reference, we are concerned with the estate of late Shri Lalchand Agrawal, who died on 16th Jan., 1972. He happened to be a partner of a firm, M/s Lalchand Nawal Kishore, in which there were three partners, viz., Lalchand Agrawal, Smt. Shanti Devi and B. P. Dalmia. The deceased had 50per cent share in the firm. The deceased retired from the partnership on 18th Oct., 1971, leaving Smt. Shanti Devi and B. P. Dalmia as partners of the firm and the firm continued as such.

(3.) IN the face of the terms contained in the above clause, there cannot be any doubt that there was no disposition in favour of the three grandsons of the deceased. That being the clear position, it is obvious that the Tribunal was justified in holding that there had been no disposition by the deceased. The provisions of S. 9 r/w S. 27 of the Act, therefore, are not attracted. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that there had been no disposition by the deceased in favour of any relative when he retired from the partnership and the provisions of S. 9 r/w S. 27 of the Act were not attracted. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs.