Judgment Nazir Ahmad, J. 1. A statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench "A", Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), under Sec. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to "as the Act"), referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the value of the share of the deceased was to be aggregated with the value of the share of the lineal descendants under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act for determining the rate of estate duty ?" 2. The relevant facts of the case can be culled from the statement of the case, the assessment order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (hereinafter referred to as "the Assistant Controller"), the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Controller") and the order of the Tribunal. Late Haricharan Sahu died on May 31, 1969. He was a member of a Hindu undivided family and the four accountable persons, namely, Durga Prasad Sahu, Bindeshwari Prasad Sahu, Sarju Prasad Sahu and Lakshmi Prasad Sahu, are the four sons of the deceased. The Assistant Controller computed the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 1,61,295 which represented the value of the properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family to which the deceased belonged. The Assistant Controller had found that the deceased had 1/6th share in the properties of the Hindu undivided family. According to the Assistant Controller, the duty was to be levied on the 1/6th share at the rate applicable to the principal value of the estate formed by including the shares of the four sons of the deceased also. The Assistant Controller rejected the plea of the accountable persons that no duty was leviable as the total estate coming to the share of the deceased was below the dutiable limit. Reliance was placed on the case of Gunda Bhaskara Rao V/s. CED [1968] 67 ITR 309 (AP). A copy of the assessment order of the Assistant Controller has been annexed and marked as annexure A forming part of the statement of the case. 3. The accountable persons appealed before the Appellate Controller. The Appellate Controller relying on the decision in T. R. Jayasankar V/s. Asst. A copy of the assessment order of the Assistant Controller has been annexed and marked as annexure A forming part of the statement of the case. 3. The accountable persons appealed before the Appellate Controller. The Appellate Controller relying on the decision in T. R. Jayasankar V/s. Asst. CED [1972] 83 ITR 445 (Ker), wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 34 of the Act were not attracted unless the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased exceeds Rs. 50,000. According to the Appellate Controller, the principal value of the estate in this case was below Rs. 50,000 and so the provisions of Sec.34 of the Act regarding aggregation of the property were not attracted, He, therefore, held that the estate of the deceased was not liable to duty. A copy of the order of the Appellate Controller has been annexed and marked as annexure B forming part of the statement of the case. 4. When the matter came before the Tribunal, it was pointed out on behalf of the Department that the Appellate Controller had ignored the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. According to the provisions of aggregation given in that section, the properties to be aggregated had to form one estate and estate duty is to be levied with reference to the principal value of the aggregated estate. It was also submitted, on behalf of the Department, that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act provided that where the property passing consisted of coparceners interest in the joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the interest in the joint Hindu family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased have to be aggregated to form one estate and that Sec.34(2) of the Act provided for the method of calculation of duty on the estate. On the basis of these provisions, it was submitted before the Tribunal that the principal value of the estate in the present case was above Rs. 50,000 and what was to be determined was the rate of estate duty which was to be levied only on the 1/6th share belonging to the deceased at the time of his death. On the basis of these provisions, it was submitted before the Tribunal that the principal value of the estate in the present case was above Rs. 50,000 and what was to be determined was the rate of estate duty which was to be levied only on the 1/6th share belonging to the deceased at the time of his death. On behalf of the accountable person, it was submitted that there could be no aggregation unless the share of the deceased was above the dutiable limit, and for this purpose reliance was placed on the decision in T.R. Jayasankar V/s. Asst. CED [1912] 83 ITR 445 (Ker). 5. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act which created charge of estate duty on the principal value of the estate ascertained in accordance with the provisions of law. The Tribunal also held that the rate of estate duty is as per specification in Sec.35 read with the Second Schedule to the Act. The Tribunal also held that applying these provisions and the provisions of Sec.39 of the Act, the value of the interest of the deceased in the joint Hindu family was less than Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Sec.34 of the Act which provided for aggregation of various amounts so as to form one estate and estate duty has to be levied at the rate applicable in respect of the principal value of the aggregated estate. The Tribunal further referred to the Explanation to Sec.34(2) of the Act which provides that the property exempt from estate duty amongst other things meant the interest of all the coparceners other than the deceased in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. The Tribunal also pointed out that Sec.35 of the Act also provides the rate with reference to the principal value of the estate and where the principal value of the estate does not exceed Rs. 50,000, the rate is prescribed as nil. Considering all the provisions, the Tribunal was of the view that the share of the lineal descendants of the deceased member has to be included in the estate of the deceased and the principal value of the estate has to be determined after inclusion of the share of the lineal descendants. 50,000, the rate is prescribed as nil. Considering all the provisions, the Tribunal was of the view that the share of the lineal descendants of the deceased member has to be included in the estate of the deceased and the principal value of the estate has to be determined after inclusion of the share of the lineal descendants. The Tribunal also held that after the rate of estate duty is determined, the duty itself has to be calculated only on the value of that part of the estate which is fully dutiable in the hands of the estate. The Tribunal was of the view that the share of the lineal descendants also forms part of the estate and its value was also a part of the principal value of the estate. The Tribunal was further of the view that when any section of the law makes specific provisions which provides for certain inclusions for a particular purpose, it would not be correct to exclude it for that purpose. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Sardarni Virpaul Kaur V/s. CED [1972] 85 ITR 45 (P & H)and V. Devaki Ammal V/s. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24 (Mad) and relying on these decisions, the Tribunal was of the view that the share of the deceased had to be aggregated with the value of the share of his lineal descendants for ascertaining the principal value of the estate and the rate of duty could be determined on the basis of such principal value although the duty was to be levied only on the deceaseds share as provided under Section 34(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the duty was leviable and the Tribunal sent back the case to the Appellate Controller to decide the question of valuation which had not been decided by him. The order of the Tribunal has been annexed and marked as annexure C forming part of the statement of the case. 6. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia for the Revenue has fairly conceded that the net principal value of the Hindu undivided family property has been determined at Rs. 1,61,295, as appears from the assessment order of the Assistant Controller. The order of the Tribunal has been annexed and marked as annexure C forming part of the statement of the case. 6. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia for the Revenue has fairly conceded that the net principal value of the Hindu undivided family property has been determined at Rs. 1,61,295, as appears from the assessment order of the Assistant Controller. He has also fairly conceded that the family of the deceased who expired on May 31, 1969, consisted of his four sons and his wife who are accountable persons in the present case before us and so the deceased was entitled to 1/6th share in the Hindu undivided family property. He has also conceded that 1/6th share of the net principal value of the estate of the deceased will be Rs. 26,862.50 which will definitely be much below Rs. 50,000. It is also fairly conceded by both the parties that under Sec.39(1) of the Act, the value of the benefit accruing and arising from the cesser of a coparcenary interest in the joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law which ceases on the death of a member thereof shall be the principal value of the share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. Thus, it has to be held that the deceased would be entitled to 1/6th share which has been also accepted by the Assistant Controller, the Appellate Controller and the Tribunal. It has also been fairly conceded by both the parties that on May 31, 1969, when the deceased expired, according to the Second Schedule to the Act, where the principal value of the estate does not exceed Rs. 50,000, the estate duty payable will be nil. Thus, it is evident that no estate duty is payable on 1/6th share of the deceased, as the principal value of this share was below Rs. 50,000. In this connection, Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia has submitted that even though 1/6th share of the deceased is less than Rs. 50,000, if the share of the lineal descendants is aggregated under Sec.34 of the Act, then the duty will be payable on the 1/6 share of the deceased. 7. Mr. 50,000. In this connection, Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia has submitted that even though 1/6th share of the deceased is less than Rs. 50,000, if the share of the lineal descendants is aggregated under Sec.34 of the Act, then the duty will be payable on the 1/6 share of the deceased. 7. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has referred to Sec.2(16) of the Act which lays down that "property passing on the death" includes property passing either immediately on the death or after any interval, either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and "on the death" includes "at a period ascertainable only by reference to the death." 8. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also referred to Sec. 5 of the Act which lays down that "in the case of every person dying after the commencement of this Act, there shall, save as hereinafter expressly provided, be levied and paid upon the principal value ascertained as hereinafter provided of all property, which passes on the death of such person, a duty called "estate duty" at the rates fixed in accordance with Sec.36. He has also referred to Section 7 of the Act which lays down that subject to the provisions of this section, property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the deceaseds death to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cesser of such interest, including, in particular, a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. He also referred to Part III of the Act where certain exemptions have been provided from the charge of duty which relates to Sections 21 to 33 of the Act. He has specifically referred to Section 33 of the Act which gives details of exemption. He has then referred to Section 34 of the Act which relates to aggregation of property and rate of duty. He has specifically referred to Section 33 of the Act which gives details of exemption. He has then referred to Section 34 of the Act which relates to aggregation of property and rate of duty. Section 34(i)(c) of the Act lays down that for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty to be paid on any property passing on the death of deceased, in the case of property so passing which consists of a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, also the interests in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased member shall be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty shall be levied thereon at the rate or rates applicable in respect of the principal value thereof. Sec.34(2) lays down that where any such estate as is referred to in Sub-section (1) includes any property exempt from estate duty, the estate duty leviable on the property not so exempt shall be an amount bearing to the total amount of duty which would have been payable on the whole estate, had no part of it been so exempt, the same proportion as the value of the property not so exempt bears to the value of the whole estate. The Explanation to Sec.34(2) of the Act lays down that for the purpose of this sub-section, "property exempt from the estate duty" means the interests of all coparceners other than the deceased in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. This clearly goes to show that no estate duty is to be paid on the interests in the joint family property of the lineal descendants of the deceased. 9. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also referred to Sec.35 of the Act which lays down that the rates of estate duty shall be as mentioned in the Second Schedule. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions, Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has submitted that in the Second Schedule where it is mentioned that the duty up to Rs. 50,000 will be nil, it only means that no duty will be chargeable to that extent, but it does not show that it is exempt as exemptions are provided in Sec.33 of the Act. In this connection, he has adopted the reasonings as given by the Tribunal. 11. 50,000 will be nil, it only means that no duty will be chargeable to that extent, but it does not show that it is exempt as exemptions are provided in Sec.33 of the Act. In this connection, he has adopted the reasonings as given by the Tribunal. 11. Now, let us consider as to how far the arguments of Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia can be accepted. In this connection, in support of his argument, he has relied on various decisions. 12. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has relied on the case of Sardarni Virpaul Kaur V/s. CED [1972] 85 ITR 45, which is a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this decision, it has been laid down that a combined reading of sections 34 and 35 of the Act would show that if the value of non-agricultural property of a deceased person exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, then the same would be chargeable to estate duty, and the rate at which the said duty would be leviable would be arrived at after including the agricultural land situated in Pepsu belonging to the deceased, but which was not liable to estate duty at the time of his death, for the determination of the principal value of the estate of the deceased and on that basis the rate of estate duty would be fixed. In this case, Sec.34 of the Act was applied because the value of the non-agricultural property of the deceased was found liable to estate duty. Sec.34 of the Act lays down that the agricultural land so passing, if any, situate in any State not specified in the First Schedule was to be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty shall be levied thereon at the rate or rates applicable in respect of the principal value thereof and the Explanation to Sec.34 was also applicable as under the Explanation any agricultural land situate in any State not specified in the First Schedule was the property exempt from the estate duty and so for rate purposes, the agricultural land was included in this decision. Once it is held that non-agricultural property is liable to estate duty, then it cannot be doubted that Sec.34 of the Act will be applicable. Once it is held that non-agricultural property is liable to estate duty, then it cannot be doubted that Sec.34 of the Act will be applicable. Hence, this decision is not a decision on the point as to what will be the position if a non-agricultural property of a deceased person is not liable to estate duty and so this decision is not helpful to the Revenue. 13. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia for the Revenue has also relied on the case of V. Devaki Ammal V/s. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24 (Mad). In this case, the accountable person submitted a return of estate duty declaring the principal value of the share of the deceased in the joint family properties at Rs. 74,884. In this case, the question of aggregation naturally arose. If the share of the deceased is liable to estate duty, then it cannot be doubted that the principle of aggregation laid down in Sec.34 will be applicable. Of course, in this decision, it was held that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act infringes article 14 of the Constitution and so it was declared ultra vires. However, Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has relied on one observation in this judgment where it has been observed that it cannot be disputed that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act brings about a different tax effect and imposes a higher tax burden on the property passing on death in case the deceased had left lineal descendants, notwithstanding the provisions in Sub-section (2) and that this position is more apparent when the value of the interest of the deceased passing on his death is less than Rs. 50,000 as in such a case by the operation of Sec.34(1)(c), the lineal descendants share is included with that of the deceased and estate duty becomes payable, while but for such inclusion no estate duty would become payable. This observation of the Madras High Court is only a reasoning and this question was not required to be decided in that case as the principal value of the share of the deceased in the joint family property was more than Rs. 50,000 and so estate duty was leviable and hence this observation in this decision is not helpful to the Revenue. 14. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of CED V/s. R.S. Gwalre [1981] 130 ITR 261 (MP). 50,000 and so estate duty was leviable and hence this observation in this decision is not helpful to the Revenue. 14. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of CED V/s. R.S. Gwalre [1981] 130 ITR 261 (MP). In this case also, the net principal value of the deceased was determined at Rs. 6,12,722 under Sec. 58(3) of the Act by the Assistant Controller. While making the said assessment, the Assistant Controller included a sum of Rs, 33,332 representing the value of 4/6ths share of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the residential house of the Hindu undivided family and in that case Sec.34 of the Act was applied. This decision is also not helpful to the Revenue as the principal value of the estate of the deceased was liable to estate duty. 15. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of CED V/s. Estate of late R. Krishnamachari [1978] 113 ITR 200 (Mad). In this case, a member of the Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law died. The only other members of the family were his only son and the deceaseds widow. The total estimated value of the properties arrived at by applying the principle in Sec.36 of the Act was Rs. 2. lakhs. The correctness of this finding was not challenged. Out of Rs. 2 lakhs worth of joint family properties, a bulk of it was contributed by a residential house in which the deceased lived with his son and wife and the condition necessary for getting exemption under Sec.33(1)(n) of the Act that it should have been exclusively used by the deceased for his residence was assumed during the proceedings. In this case, it is not evident as to what was the principal value of the share of the deceased in the properties other than the house property. In this case, it is not evident as to what was the principal value of the share of the deceased in the properties other than the house property. However, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for hearing afresh and a guideline was given that for the purpose of determining the value of the share of a member of the joint Hindu family and for the purpose of imposing estate duty on his estate after his death, first of all, the total value of all the properties, valuing each of them separately, must be determined under Sec.39(3) and after having determined that, such of those properties to the extent to which exemption had been given under the various clauses in Sec.33(1) will be taken out to that extent. It was also given as a guideline that the aggregate of the remaining must be divided as if at the time of the death there was a partition and the share due to the deceased determined and the share so determined will be the share on which the duty could be imposed under the Act and no other, but in the case where the deceased had left behind lineal descendants, by virtue of the provision in Sec.34(1)(c), the extent of the shares of the lineal descendants of the deceased had to be aggregated to the share of the deceased in the property and the rate applicable to the aggregated value of that estate was to be taken into account, and then a reference was made to Sec.33(1)(n) of the Act, It was also mentioned in paragraph 12 of the judgment that on the facts of the case, the extent of the exemption in the house will be only to the extent of Rs. 85,000. It is not clear from this decision as to what was the value of the other properties which were liable to estate duty relating to the extent of the share of the deceased. Hence, this decision is also not helpful to the Revenue. 16. In the case of Hari Ram V/s. Asst. CED [1975] 101 ITR 539, which is a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act was a valid piece of legislation and it was not ultra vires. In this case, Sadhu Ram died on July 3, 1969, and he had left movable property valued at Rs. CED [1975] 101 ITR 539, which is a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act was a valid piece of legislation and it was not ultra vires. In this case, Sadhu Ram died on July 3, 1969, and he had left movable property valued at Rs. 1,67,564, had 1/6th share of the value of Rs. 58,206 in the joint Hindu family property and a similar share in a residential house of the value of Rs. 15,000 which was claimed to be exempt from payment of estate duty under Section 33(1)(n) of the Act. Thus, it is evident that in this case the principal value of the estate of the deceased exceeded Rs. 50,000 and that the question of vires was considered. It has also been pointed out at page 544 in this decision that the estate duty has to be assessed on the chargeable estate and in the manner provided in Sec.34(1) and (2) of the Act and not on the entire estate including the shares of the lineal descendants and that the shares of the lineal descendants have to be excluded under Sub-section (2) of Sec.34 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that in this case, the duty had to be levied on the estate passing on the death of the deceased. Thus, this decision is not helpful to the Revenue. 17. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of Rameshwar Lal Agarwal V/s. Union of India [1982] 133 ITR 545 (Pat). In this case, the Patna High Court held that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act does not violate article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, the accountable person had filed a return declaring the principal value of the shares of the deceased in the joint family properties at Rs. 60,208 and that the Assistant Controller determined the value of the property passing on the death of the deceased at Rs. 1,01,359. He also added an equal sum and further a sum of Rs. 31,336 being the share of the petitioner as lineal descendant of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of Section 34(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the principal value of the estate was determined at Rs. 2,34,054 in accordance with the provisions of Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act. 1,01,359. He also added an equal sum and further a sum of Rs. 31,336 being the share of the petitioner as lineal descendant of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of Section 34(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the principal value of the estate was determined at Rs. 2,34,054 in accordance with the provisions of Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act. The Patna High Court held that the constitutional validity of Sec.34(1)(c) was upheld by various High Courts and, accordingly, Sec.34(1)(c) was held to be constitutional. In this case, the argument of Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia was that it would not be correct to hold that the interest of the lineal descendants was aggregated with the estate of the deceased coparcener for the purpose of levying the duty thereon and that the addition was simply for the sake of working out a higher rate of duty and once that purpose is achieved, the interest is separated and no duty is levied on the interest of the other coparcener, namely, the lineal descendants. This court held that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act is valid. 18. It is thus evident that in each of the decisions cited by Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia, the principal value of the estate of the deceased passing on the death of the deceased exceeded Rs. 50,000. He did not cite any decision where the principal value of the estate of the deceased passing on his death was less than Rs. 50,000 and even then it was held that Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act will be applicable. It cannot be doubted that where the interest of the deceased passing on his death exceeds Rs. 50,000, then certainly Sec.34 of the Act will be applicable in that case and it is only in such cases where the question arose as to whether Sec.34 of the Act was constitutional or not. 19. Mr. K. N. Jain has relied on two decisions where specifically the question was considered where the dutiable estate of the deceased was less than Rs. 50,000. 20. Mr. K. N. Jain has relied on the case of T. JR. Jayasankar V/s. Asst. CED [1972] 83 ITR 445 (Ker). In this case, the Assistant Controller fixed the value of the whole property belonging to the tarwad of the deceased at Rs. 1,05,013 and the value of one-third share which the deceased would have got on a partition at Rs. 35,004. Jayasankar V/s. Asst. CED [1972] 83 ITR 445 (Ker). In this case, the Assistant Controller fixed the value of the whole property belonging to the tarwad of the deceased at Rs. 1,05,013 and the value of one-third share which the deceased would have got on a partition at Rs. 35,004. He applied Sub-section (1)(c) and (2) of Sec.34 of the Act to the case, and levied duty on the one-third share at the rate applicable to the aggregated value of the property belonging to the deceased and her lineal descendants, namely, her two minor children. In those circumstances, the Kerala High Court held that if the property passing on the death of the deceased is not chargeable under the Act, as its principal value falls below the chargeable limit, there is no question of the rate of duty and that Sec.34 of the Act deals only with a case of a chargeable estate and, in the present case, as the principal value of the estate of the deceased was admittedly far below Rs. 50,000, the assessment made on the petitioner could not be sustained. 21. Mr. K.N. Jain has also relied on the case of CED V/s. Madan Lal [1979] 113 ITR 332 (Delhi). In this case, the deceased was a member of a Hindu undivided family. His interest in the joint family property which passed on his death was valued at Rs. 31,429. The value of the interest of his lineal descendants was Rs. 1,90,750. The Tribunal held that since the property passing on his death was worth less than Rs. 50,000, it was not assessable to estate duty in view of Section 5 read with Sec.35(1) of, and Schedule II to, the Act and that it did not become assessable merely because it was to be aggregated under Section 34 of the Act with the value of the interest of his lineal descendants for determining the rate at which the property passing on his death had to be assessed to estate duty. In those circumstances, the Delhi High Court held, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that a reading of Sections 5 and 35(1) and Schedule II of the Act made it clear that the property of the deceased passing on his death being below Rs. In those circumstances, the Delhi High Court held, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that a reading of Sections 5 and 35(1) and Schedule II of the Act made it clear that the property of the deceased passing on his death being below Rs. 50,000 was not chargeable to estate duty at all, and this fact was not altered by the aggregation of the property passing on his death with the property of his lineal descendants under Sec.34 of the Act and that aggregation had to be done only for the purpose of determining the rate at which the property passing on his death should be assessed to estate duty, but this was subject to the condition that, independently of the aggregation, the property should have been liable to estate duty and since this condition was not fulfilled in this case, the property passing on the death of the deceased continued to be not liable to be charged to estate duty and the state of non-liability was not transformed into a state of liability by aggregation under Sec.34 of the Act. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision in T. R. Jayasankar V/s. Asst. CED [1972] 83 ITR 45. Probably, reliance was placed on the decisions in Sardarni Virpaul Kaur V/s. CED [1972] 85 ITR 45 (P & H) and V. Devaki Ammal V/s. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24 (Mad) relating to the principle of aggregation discussed therein. 22. In view of the decisions relied upon by Mr. K. N. Jain which specifically laid down that where the estate of the deceased passing is of a value less than Rs. 50,000 and is not chargeable to estate duty, then no aggregation under Sec.34 of the Act can be done. I agree with the decisions of the Kerala and Delhi High Courts, as mentioned above, and I hold that the 1/6th share of the deceased was less than Rs. 50,000 and so the aggregation under Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act is not permissible. 23. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the value of the share of the deceased was to be aggregated with the value of the share of the lineal descendants under Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act for determining the rate of estate duty. 23. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the value of the share of the deceased was to be aggregated with the value of the share of the lineal descendants under Sec.34(1)(c) of the Act for determining the rate of estate duty. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable persons and against the Revenue. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Tribunal in terms of Sec.260 of the Act. Uday Sinha, J. 24 I agree.