JUDGMENT : S.D. Dave, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the undermentioned two questions while exercising the jurisdiction under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for our opinion and answer : "1. Whether, on the facts, construction of the will dated April 14, 1958, and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no property passed on the death of the deceased, Dhanbharati Guru Gangabharati, which could be included in the dutiable estate of the deceased under any of the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? 2. Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the deceased, Dhanbharati Guru Gangabharati, was a Mahant of the Mota Math at Sidhpur and on his death no property could be said to have passed under section 5, 6 or 7 of the Estate Duty Act and consequently nothing was includible in the dutiable estate of the deceased is correct in law and on the evidence on record ?" 2. The facts which are beyond the pale of controversy may be noticed thus : Dhanbharati Guru Gangabharati happened to be a Mahant of a Math called Mota Math, situated at Sidhpur which is said to be in existence for the last 700 years. It appears that, under a tradition which is known as Guru Parampara, a Mahant used to appoint his successor Mahant by executing the necessary will. The deceased, Dhanbharati, was also appointed as a Mahant by the previous Mahant by execution of the necessary will. Apart from the Mahant who used to work in the capacity as a manager of the Math, other persons known as Bhayats had also certain rights against the Mahant, including the right to depose him if he did not administer the properties of the Math in a proper manner. The properties of the Math were administered and managed by the Mahant according to the custom which was prevalent since the last so many years for the management of the Math. The deceased, Dhanbharati, had expired on December 12, 1969, leaving a will dated April 14, 1968, under which one Laxman Bhai Guru Dhanbharati was appointed as the Mahant after the demise of the testator. The necessary estate duty account was filed by Laxmanbharati as the accountable person. The deceased, Dhanbharati, had expired on December 12, 1969, leaving a will dated April 14, 1968, under which one Laxman Bhai Guru Dhanbharati was appointed as the Mahant after the demise of the testator. The necessary estate duty account was filed by Laxmanbharati as the accountable person. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was of the opinion that the entire property of the Math passed on the death of the Mahant. While coming to the above said conclusion, the Assistant Controller had placed reliance upon certain aspects regarding the management of the Math property and certain averments made in the will of the deceased. According to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the position of a Mahant could have been equated with a Sthanam and, on the basis of certain decisions, the view was taken that on the death of the deceased, property had passed which was chargeable to estate duty under the Act of 1953. The above said orders of assessment were made by the above said authority on July 26, 1976. The accountable person challenged the above said orders by filing an appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty. The Appellate Controller also agreed with the views expressed by the Assistant Controller by saying that the position of a Mahant was somewhat like a Sthanam. He has also pointed out that the income-tax and wealth-tax assessments had been made on the Mahant as if the entire income had accrued to him. He had also relied upon the will under which the deceased had appointed a successor-Mahant. Thus, the appeal filed by the accountable person came to be dismissed by the appellate authority by the orders dated March 5, 1977. The accountable person, therefore, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the basis of certain facts found by it, came to the conclusion that the appeal was required to be allowed. As a result of the above said finding, the appeal filed by the accountable person came to be allowed by the orders dated March 31, 1979. It is in view of this position that the Controller of Estate Duty moved the Tribunal for making a reference of the aforesaid two questions to us and, accordingly, they have been referred to us. It is in view of this position that the Controller of Estate Duty moved the Tribunal for making a reference of the aforesaid two questions to us and, accordingly, they have been referred to us. The taxing authorities below had taken the view that, on the ceasing of the interest of the deceased, the entire properties shown in the assessment orders passed and that the above said estate left behind by the deceased was chargeable to estate duty under the relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. This position becomes clear from the orders of assessment dated July 26, 1976, available at annexure-B, saying that the principal value determined would be of Rs. 10,00,000. The same view was taken by the appellate authority. As indicated above by us, however, the Tribunal was not able to subscribe to the above said views taken by the authorities below. 3. A reference to the orders of the Income-tax Tribunal available at annexure-E would go to show that a certain position has been accepted by the Tribunal as a finding of fact. The Tribunal has noticed that the Mahant used to manage the properties of the Math and that the Math was a permanent entity who was the owner of the properties belonging to the Math. It is also pointed out by the Tribunal that the Mahant was acting merely as a manager of the Math property. In the concluding portion of the orders pronounced by the Tribunal, it is mentioned that the only property which was within the disposing capacity of the deceased Mahant was the right to nominate his successor to the office. It is broadly on the above said reasoning that the Tribunal has proceeded to say that no property passed on the death of the deceased. When the above said concluding portion of the order rendered by the Tribunal on March 31, 1971, is read in juxtaposition with certain findings recorded by the Tribunal earlier and especially at paragraphs 13 and 14, it appears to us very clear that the deceased had a right to be maintained along with the right of residence, vis-a-vis, the Math property. It is also found by the Tribunal that the Mahant had a right to appoint a successor-Mahant also. It is also found by the Tribunal that the Mahant had a right to appoint a successor-Mahant also. The above said findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are not in dispute before us and, therefore, we proceed to decide the reference on the basis of the above said facts. 4. It cannot be accepted that the only property which was within the disposing capacity of the deceased Mahant was a right to nominate his successor to the office by or under the will. As found by the Tribunal itself, the deceased had a right to be maintained from the Math property and he had also a right of residence along with other persons who are popularly known as Bhayats of the Math. It is, therefore, clear that, over and above the right of nomination of a successor-Mahant, the deceased had a right in the property of the Math to be maintained along with the right of residence. To this extent, it appears that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. It shall have to be accepted that the deceased had not only a right to nominate his successor-Mahant but that he had also a right to be maintained out of the Math property. In the same way, he had a right of residence along with other bhayats, vis-a-vis, the Math property. However, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal shall have to be accepted because the above said interest of the deceased Mahant in the Math property could not have been computed under the relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and especially under section 40 of the same. In view of this position, it shall have to be accepted that the computation had failed and, therefore, in the absence of the necessary computation, the estate could not have been brought into the net of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. It is in this way that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of law shall have to be endorsed by us. 5. The Tribunal was conscious that the deceased, while executing his will under which a successor-Mahant has been appointed, had tried to say that he was the owner of the property and, under the will, he was disposing of the property in his capacity as the owner thereof. 5. The Tribunal was conscious that the deceased, while executing his will under which a successor-Mahant has been appointed, had tried to say that he was the owner of the property and, under the will, he was disposing of the property in his capacity as the owner thereof. But the Tribunal has also noticed by way of a finding of fact that, under the Guru Parampara which was known to the management of the Math, a Mahant was being appointed by a previous Mahant under the will and the so appointed Mahant was also entitled to nominate his successor-Mahant by executing the necessary will. This Guru Parampara of appointing the successorMahant under the will is not in dispute. It is also clear that, during the course of certain litigation, it has been finally decided that the Math was a private trust and that the Mahant happens to be the manager of the above said trust. In view of this clear finding of fact, it could not have been urged by the Revenue for the successful outcome of its case that, as the deceased had described himself as an absolute owner of the property bequeathed under the will, he was in fact the owner of the above said properties and that, on his death, the said properties had passed on to the successor Mahant. A reference in this respect requires to be made to the Supreme Court decision in CED v. Mahant Umesh Narain Puri [1982] 135 ITR 139. In that case also, the properties were originally granted to a Math by Emperor Shah Alam II by a firman and that the Mahant was working in the capacity of a manager of the Math property. It has been laid down specifically in this decision that the mere fact that the deceased Mahant had disposed of some of the properties would not materially affect the question of consideration of the true nature and character of the properties. In view of the above said principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in this reference also it can be said without any hesitation that, irrespective of certain averments made by the deceased Mahant in his will, the property remained the property of the Math. It is no doubt true that the deceased had a two-fold right in the property. In view of the above said principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in this reference also it can be said without any hesitation that, irrespective of certain averments made by the deceased Mahant in his will, the property remained the property of the Math. It is no doubt true that the deceased had a two-fold right in the property. As indicated by us earlier, he had a right to be maintained from the Math property along with a right of residence. But the above said rights were co-existent with the rights of other Bhayats. It, therefore, appears that the justifiable view would be that the computation was not possible under section 40 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. It, therefore, becomes clear that the Tribunal was right in holding that no property passed on the death of the deceased Dhanbharati which could be included in the dutiable estate of the deceased under the relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. In the same way, in our view, the Tribunal was also further justified in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was only a Mahant of the Math in question and, on his death, no property would be said to have passed under section 5, 6 or 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and, therefore, consequently nothing was liable to be included in the dutiable estate of the deceased. Therefore, the question referred to us requires to be answered and replied in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We, therefore, do hereby answer the said questions accordingly with no order as to costs.