CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. MEHTA S S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 10th Feb., 1983 :

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the deceased had one-fifth share in the immovable property belonging to HUF of which he was Karta. He was survived by his wife and three sons. All the sons stayed outside in connection with either employment or profession. THE value of the house, after adjustment of the loan, was taken at Rs. 1,60,000. THE property was partly self-occupied and partly let out. THE share of the lineal descendants was taken at Rs. 60,000 in the let out portion and at Rs. 36,000 in the self occupied portion and both the amounts were included for the rate purposes in view of s. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act. On appeal, the ACED excluded the sum of Rs. 36,000 representing the share of lineal descendants in the self occupied portion, following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CED vs. Estate of Late Durga Prasad Beharilal (1979) 116 ITR 692 (AP). THE order of the ACED was accepted by the Tribunal and it was observed that the self occupied portion which was used by the deceased was exempt. Except the deceased and his family, no stranger lived in the self occupied portion. THE part of the house exclusively remained in the occupation of the deceased, therefore, was fully exempt under s. 33(1)(n) r/w cl. (c) has no application to such portion.