MIRA ROY Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), at the instance of applicant, Smt. Mira Roy, wherein the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated are that Dr. A. Roy, husband of the applicant, was in the service of the United Nations Organisation at Tehran and while he was in such service, he participated under the Group Insurance Plan of the said Organisation. Under the said plan, Dr. Roy had appointed the applicant and her son as the beneficiaries to the policy in equal shares. On the death of Dr. Roy, a sum of Rs. 3,27,464 was received by the designated beneficiaries, namely, the applicant and her son, Suprit Roy, under the said Group Insurance Plan. THE Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,27,464 in the principal value of the estate of the deceased passing on his death and did not accept the claim of the applicant for making a separate assessment under Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty accepted the claim of the applicant and excluded the amount of Rs. 3,27,464 as reduced by the rebate from the principal value of the estate of the deceased and directed that a separate assessment should be made for that amount keeping in view the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act treating it as an estate by itself. THE Tribunal on appeal did not accept the finding recorded by the Appellate Controller and while dealing with the question as to whether the case was covered by Section 34(3) of the Act, the Tribunal has held that to determine the said issue, at first a finding has to be recorded as to whether the property In the policy is one in which the deceased had no interest. THE Tribunal also held that the Appellate Controller had not recorded any finding on this issue. In the circumstances, the Tribunal directed that the determination of this issue should be restored to the file of the Appellate Controller for recording a clear finding on this issue. Although the Tribunal has made this observation during the course of the judgment, in the operative part of the said judgment the Tribunal has not given any direction remanding the matter to the Appellate Controller for giving a finding on this issue and has, on the other hand, after setting aside the order of the Appellate Controller, restored the order of the Assistant Controller.