THAKUR VIKRAM SINGH Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under s. 64(3) of the ED Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), requesting this Court for directing the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, to state the case and refer the following questions of law arising out of its order dt. 21st May, 1980:

(2.) THE petitioner is the legal heir of late Smt. Raj Dadiji Jodhiji of Sikar, who expired on 6th Jan., 1977, after a long illness. THE petitioner was at Nepal for about four months due to indisposition of his wife and was not present in Sikar at the time of the death of Smt. Raj Dadiji Jodhiji on 6th Jan., 1977. One Lal Singh, in-charge of Janani Deodhi, sealed the property left by late Smt. Raj Dadiji Jodhiji and prepared a memo on the same night which is signed by four responsible persons. Seals were put inthe presence of the motbirs on the locks which were already affixed and the key of the room and the safe was kept by Lal Singh. THE said seals were broken and locks were opened on 8th Jan., 1977, in the presence of the following persons :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the burden was on the Department to prove that at the time of the death of the deceased, he was in possession of jewellery and cash as shown in the WT return and it is not for the accountable person to explain as to what has happened to the jewellery shown in the wealth statement of the deceased and placed reliance on Veerabhadrappa Chigateri vs. CED (1970) 77 ITR 666 (Mys) and Smt. Shantiabai Jadhav vs. CED (1964) 51 ITR (ED) I (AP). THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Department never asked for cross-examining the witnesses who were present at the time of sealing or when it was opened and the cash and jewellery were handed over and delivered to the petitioner and no inquiry was made by the Department in that connection. THErefore, the Department should not have discarded the two panchnamas merely on suspicion and conjecture and relied on Sheo Narain Duli Chand vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 766 (All). He has further submitted that even a finding on a question of fact can be assailed in the High Court if there is no evidence to support it or if the finding is perverse and as there is no evidence to support the decision arrived at by the Department and since it is perverse, it does raise a question of law and the High Court should direct the Tribunal to refer the question of law as mentioned above. In this connection, he placed reliance on CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmull (1964) 53 ITR 574 (SC) and CIT vs. S. P. Jain 1972 CTR (SC) 443 : (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC) and also on CIT vs. Daulat Rain Rawatmull 1972 CTR (SC) 441 : (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), Fakhri Automobiles vs. CIT (1979) CTR (Raj) 192 : (1980) 126 ITR 417 (Raj) and CIT vs. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. (In liquidation) (1980) 126 ITR 809 (Raj).