CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. NIRMALA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 14, 1982, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :

(2.) THE facts as stated by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, in his order dated February 5, 1980, are that the deceased had a 1/5th interest in the residential family house property belonging to the deceased, his wife and three sons. It was claimed that the value of the family property should be exempt under Section 33(1)(n) as its value was below Rs. 1,00,000. According to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the value of the house property was assessed at a figure of Rs. 65,000. THE house property was assessed in land and building tax as on March 1, 1973, at a figure of Rs. 56,500. THErefore, in order to estimate the value as on April 1, 1973, the Assistant Controller considered it at a figure of Rs. 1,00,000 and the 1/5th share of the deceased therein was exempted and the 3/5ths share of the three legal representatives was held liable to be included in the estate for rate purposes.

(3.) ON a bare perusal of Section 33(1)(n) it is clear that the house which is exclusively used by the deceased to the extent the principal value thereof does not exceed rupees one lakh if such house is situate in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand, and the full principal value thereof in any other case has been exempted. The finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal in the present case is that the said house was exclusively occupied by the deceased before his death and, therefore, the entire house was not includible in the principal value of the estate passing on his death.