Honble SINGHAL, J. – The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated sptember 14,1982, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act , 1953:– "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the share of the lineal descen- dants in the coparcenery house property was not includible in the principal estate of the assessee for rate purpose under Sec. 34 (1)(c) ?" (2). The facts as stated by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur in his order dated 5.2.80 are that the deceased had 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 family property should be exempt under Sec.33(1)(n) as its value was below Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the Asstt. 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 1.3.73 at a figure Rs. 56,500/- . Therefore in order to estimate the value as on 1.4.73 the Asstt. Controller considered it at a figure Rs.1,00,000/-, and 1/5th share of the deceased therein was exempted and 3/5th share of the three legal representatives was held liable to be included in the estate for rate purpose. (3). In appeal the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty following the decision of Controller of Estate Duty v. Late Durga Prasad Behari Lal (116 ITR 693), the said amount was directed to be excluded from the principal value of the estate. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal asked a question from the Departmental Representative as to whether the deceased alone was residing in the house in dispute or the lineal descendants were also residing therein. Since he was not in a position to correctly state the facts, therefore the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was occupying the house exclusively before his death and therefore the entire house was held not includible in the principal value of the estate passing of his death in view of the provisions of Sec. 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the value of interest of the lineal descendants was not includible under Sec.34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. (4). The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the value of interest of the lineal descendants was not includible under Sec.34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. (4). No one has appeared on behalf of respondents. The arguments of learned standing counsel for appellant have been heard. The provisions of Sec. 33(1)(n) and 34(1)(c) are as under :– "33. Exemptions:- (1) To the extent specified against each of the clauses in this sub-section , no estate duty shall be payable in respect of the property of any of the following kinds belonging to the deceased which passes on his death-... (n) one house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for his residence, to the extent that 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." "34. Aggregation:- (1) For the purpose of determining the rate of the estate duty to be paid on any property passing on the death of the deceased,- (1) all property so passing other than property exempted from estate duty under clauses (c),(d),(e),(i),(j),(l),(m),(mm),(n),(o) and (p) sub-section (1) of section 33; (c) 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, Marumakkattayam or Alyasantana law, also the interest 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." (5). The language such as referred in section 34(1)(c) provides aggregation of property passing on death of deceased in respect of the interest in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants and the exemption u/s. 33(1)(n) is of one house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for his residence. (6). The apex court in the case of Astt. Controller of Estate Duty v. Devaki Ammal (2) while reversing the decision of Madras High Court has upheld the aggregation and constitutionality of the provisions of Sec. 34(1)(c) as under :– "Section 34(1)(c) only provides for the rate of estate duty to be levied upon such benefit. (6). The apex court in the case of Astt. Controller of Estate Duty v. Devaki Ammal (2) while reversing the decision of Madras High Court has upheld the aggregation and constitutionality of the provisions of Sec. 34(1)(c) as under :– "Section 34(1)(c) only provides for the rate of estate duty to be levied upon such benefit. For determining that rate the interests of all the lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint Hindu family property is to be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty is to be levied at the rate applicable to the principal value thereof. Sub-section (2) of section 34 is put somewhat clumsily. It uses the expression`property exempt from duty and its Explanation defines the expression to include the interests of all coparceners other than the deceased in the joint family property. Where , there are, the estate referred to in clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 34 includes the interests of coparceners other than the deceased, which is the property exempt from estate duty, the estate duty leviable on the property not exempt, i.e. on the interest of deceased, shall be calculated by application of this formula. What is the proportion of the value of the property not exempt to the value of the estate that proportion of the amount payable on the estate is payable on the interest of the deceased." (7). On the 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 inclu- dible in the principal value of the estate passing of his death. (8). Shri Bapna submitted that so far as the interpretation of Tribunal is concerned that the property which is exclusively used by the deceased would be exempt under provisions of Sec. 33(1)(n) is not in dispute. (8). Shri Bapna submitted that so far as the interpretation of Tribunal is concerned that the property which is exclusively used by the deceased would be exempt under provisions of Sec. 33(1)(n) is not in dispute. The dispute is only that the coparceners interest in the joint family property of Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law, also, the interest of lineal descendants of the deceased member in the property is to be aggregated so as to form the estate for the purpose of levy of duty or not. Under Sec. 34(2) explanation (III) provides that `property exempt from estate duty means the interest of all coparceners other than deceased in the joint family property of a Hindu family. (9). So far as the wife is concerned she is not lineal descendant and the property of the deceased being exempted u/s. 33(1)(n) is not to be included for rate purpose. It is only the share of the lineal descendants in the joint family property which has to be included, and this point has not been properly consi- dered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In asmuch as, the `interest of the coparcener is different then the use of the property. The use of the property by the deceased may be in any manner even `in respect of property which is not owned by him, and therefore, the provisions of sec. 33(1)(n) cannot be construed so as to over rided the provisions of sec. 34(1)(c). The exemption u/s. 33(1) (n) is only of the property which is owned or belonging to the deceased and passes on his death. The property which is owned by the lineal descendants of the deceased or in which they have interest (and this is not in dispute that they had interest to the extent of 3/5th of the property) the same is liable to be included in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 34(1)(c). (10). The provisions for valuation of interest in coparcenery property ceasing on death has been provided u/s. 39(1) of the Act. For the purpose of determining the value of share of a member of the joint Hindu family and for the purpose of determining estate duty on his estate after the death and the total value of the property valuing each of them separately has to be determined in accordance with this provision. For the purpose of determining the value of share of a member of the joint Hindu family and for the purpose of determining estate duty on his estate after the death and the total value of the property valuing each of them separately has to be determined in accordance with this provision. The question of exemption, if any, than has to be examined in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 33(1)(n). The balance of the estate, thereafter has to be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 34(1)(c). On this principal of law, it has to be seen that the exemption which has been provided u/s. 33(1)(n) is in respect of the house or a part thereof which is exclusively used by the deceased for his residence . The provisions of sub- section(1)(6) of section 33 has to be interpreted in the manner that exemption contemplated by Sec.33(1)(n) in respect of those assets which belong to the deceased and passes on his death. alone are to be excluded. The asset which does not belong to the deceased or does not pass on his death can not be covered by the exemption clause. The provisions of Sec. 34(1)(c) contemplating the aggregation of the property, in which coparcener has any interest cannot be treated to be a property belonging to deceased or which could pass on his death. It is the share of deceased alone which passes on his death. (11). The Gujarat High Court in case of Ramnik Lal J. Daftary v. CED (3) has held that the interest of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property should be taken for rate purposes u/s. 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. The Madras High Court in case of T.Sundaresa Mehta v. CED (4) has also taken the view that in computing the exemption on house property owned by the HUF in which the deceased was a member, the exemption under Sec. 33(1)(n) of the Act will be available on the share of the deceased in the property and not on the entire value of the property before determining his share. The Karnataka High Court in case of CED v. K.Nataraja (5) has interpreted the provisions of Sec.33 (1)(n) of the ED Act that the words"property of any of the following kinds belonging to the deceased which passes on his death" and held that exemption can be claimed under that sub-section only in respect of that property which belongs to the deceased and which passes on the death of the deceased. It was also held that the residential house belonging to a HUF governed by the Mitakshara law, only the share of the deceased in such house is exempt from estate duty under Sec. 33(1)(n). For the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty the value of the share of the deceased in such house has to be excluded from the value of the property passing on his death under Sec. 34(1)(a), but the value of the shares of all lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property including the residential house has to be aggregated under Sec. 34(1)(c) without any reference to any exemption under Sec. 33(1)(n) of the Act. In this case the decisions in the case of ITAT v. Madan Mohan (6) and CED v. Satish Chandra (7) were considered. Where in the Allahabad High Court was of the opinion that the words `which passes on his death cannot be isolated from the provisions of Sec. 33(1)(n) and in case of a residential house belonging to the HUF it is the share of the deceased which passes on his death. The value of such share alonge in the residential house will be exempt from payment of estate duty under clause (n). The Karnataka High Court in the case of CED v. N.Ramchandra Bhat, while interpreting the provisions of Sec.33(1)(n) of the Act observed that in a residential house belonging to a HUF governed by the Mitakshara law only the share of the deceased in the house is exempt from estate duty under Sec. 33(1)(n) . The Karnataka High Court in the case of CED v. N.Ramchandra Bhat, while interpreting the provisions of Sec.33(1)(n) of the Act observed that in a residential house belonging to a HUF governed by the Mitakshara law only the share of the deceased in the house is exempt from estate duty under Sec. 33(1)(n) . For the purpose of rate of estate duty, the value of the share of the deceased in such house has to be excluded from the value of the property passing on his death under Sec. 34(1)(a) but the value of the shares of all the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property including the residential house has to be aggregated under Sec. 34(1)(a) wityhout any reference to any exemption under Section 33(1) (n). In the case of Smt. Gunvantibai v. CED (8) the Madhya Pradesh High Court has also taken the view that the value of the share of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property has to be aggregated with the principal value of the estate of the deceased for purposes of rate of duty under Sec. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act, 1953. Under Section 33 (1)(n) , only the share of the deceased in the residential house belonging to the HUF is exempt from estate duty, because a notional partition of the HUF property immediately before death is assumed and the value of that share is determined. Exemption under Sec.33 is permissible only to such share because that share alone passes on death. The similar view has been taken in the case of CED v. R.S.Gwalre (9). (12). In view of the various decisions referred above and on the basis of the language used in Sec.33(1)(n) we are of the opinion that the exemption is available only in respect of the property which belongs to the deceased and which passes on his death. The Hindu undivided property in which lineal descendants have any interest cannot be said to be entirely belonging to the deceased, only the share of the deceased to the extent which passes on his death which is exempted. It is his share alone which passes on his death and therefore, the exemption contemplated in Sec. 33(1)(n) is restricted to the share of the deceased. It is his share alone which passes on his death and therefore, the exemption contemplated in Sec. 33(1)(n) is restricted to the share of the deceased. Under Sec. 34(1)(c) the value of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property has to be aggregated with the principal value of the estate of the deceased for the purposes of rate of duty. (13). In view of the specific language of sub-section (c) of Sec. 34(1) validity of which has already been upheld by the Apex Court, the interest of lineal descendant is liable to be included and therefore, we are of the view that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the share of lineal dependants in coparcenary property was not includible in the principal estate of the deceased for rate purpose under Sec.34(1)(C). The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. No order as to cost.