Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 298 (DEL)

O. P. AHUJA,DELHI v. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

2001-03-13

ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K.JAIN

body2001
Arijit Pasayat ( 1 ) AT the instance of Sh. O. P. Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the accountable person), following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court by the In- come-tax Appellate, Tribunal Delhi Bench-E, Delhi (in short the Tribunal ), under section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the in- clusion of an amount of Rs. 1,41,828. 00 in the dutiable value of the estate of the deceased, on the ground that the deceased and his one son Shri Om parkash each had 50% share in the net assets valued at Rs. 2,83,656. 00 belonging to the smaller HUF of the deceased, to the exclusion of Smt. Vishanbai, wife of the deceased ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the in- clusion of an amount of Rs. 1,41,828. 00 for rate purposes in the dutiable value of the estate of the deceased, on the ground that the deceased and his one son Shri Om Parkash each had 50% share in the net assets valued at Rs. 2,83,656. 00 belonging to the smaller HUF of the deceased, to the exclusion of smt. Vishanbai, wife of the deceased ? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the in- clusion of an amount of Rs. 17,875. 00 in the dutiable value of the estate of the deceased, in relation to jewellery belonging to the smaller HUF of the deceased ? (4) Whether on a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 9 of the estate Duty Act, 1953 it could be said that the same were attracted to the facts of the case where the gifts in question had admittedly been made not by the deceased, but by his HUF?" though ten questions were proposed by the accountable person, aforesaid four questions have been referred: ( 2 ) PROCEEDINGS relate to the estate of Sh. Wallaya Ram Ahuja, who expired on 26/01/1976. An account of the estate was filed by the accountable person on 1/02/1978. Assessment was completed by the Additional Controller of Estate duty, New Delhi (in short Additional Controller ). It was his conclusion that HUF. of the deceased vis-a-vis property consisted of the deceased and the accountable person. Wallaya Ram Ahuja, who expired on 26/01/1976. An account of the estate was filed by the accountable person on 1/02/1978. Assessment was completed by the Additional Controller of Estate duty, New Delhi (in short Additional Controller ). It was his conclusion that HUF. of the deceased vis-a-vis property consisted of the deceased and the accountable person. For coming to such conclusion, reference was made to a registered document of trial partition executed on 31/03/1963. Stipulations/in the said document were to the effect that Smt. Lal Bai and Smt. Vishanbai, mother and wife of the deceased, agreed not to have any claim or right/share in the HUF properties. They however continued as members of the HUF and were entitled to maintenance. Elder son of the deceased named Madan Gopaltook his full share from joint family properties and had stated that he had no connection with any other member of the HUF property. Therefore additional Controller held that HUF of the deceased consisted of the deceased and the accountable persons as afore-stated. Matter was carried in appeal before the Ap- pellate Controller of Estate Duty- (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Controller ). Said authority was of the view that there was necessity for changing the value of estate but on principles the Additional Controller was correct. It has to be noted that there was another point of controversy, which related to the value of the jewellery. Addition- al Controller noticed that in the wealth-tax proceedings the deceased had filed its wealth-tax return stating that the smaller HUF owned the jewellery worth Rs. 71,500. 00. Accountable person claimed that, being of religious mind, the deceased had gifted/distributed the jewellery and therefore there was no scope for mentioning the value, of any jewellery. This plea was not found acceptable by the Additional Control- ler and the Appellate Controller. Accountable person preferred appeal before the tribunal. Its stand was that the manner of computation of the value of the properties was not proper inasmuch as not only the deceased and the accountable person had right and/or interest in the properties but also others. The inclusion of the value of jewellery was also questioned. Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the con- clusions of the first Appellate Authority because the partial partition, which took place, left the accountable person and the deceased and no other to the owner of the property. The inclusion of the value of jewellery was also questioned. Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the con- clusions of the first Appellate Authority because the partial partition, which took place, left the accountable person and the deceased and no other to the owner of the property. It was noted that two ladies had clearly surrendered their shares and Madan gopal had severed his relations with the family. That being the position only account- able person and the deceased were the two persons relevant for the purpose of ad- judication. So far as the jewellery is concerned. Tribunal held that it would be not possible to accept that the entire jewellery had been gifted away or distributed. Taking note of the factual backgrounds, it was held that aleast 50% of the jewellery, being the individual assets of the deceased, was to be included and it was not improbable that the widow and the deceased gave away jewellery to temples and to poor persons. On being moved, questions as set out above have been referred for opinion. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel of the Revenue. There is no appearance on be- half of the accountable person. ( 4 ) SO far as the questions 1 and 2 are concerned, the conclusions of the Tribunal are essentially factual. It has noted the factual backdrop and come to the conclusion that deceased and the accountable person had 50% share each in the assets. Coming to the other two questions, it is to be noted that there is no challenge to the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal about 50% of the amount being subjected to tax. Though no reason has been indicated specifically for adopting the valuation, that would not make a difference in the absence of a challenge or a stand that the same was without any foundation or basis. Above being the position, the four questions referred have to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the account- able person. Reference is accordingly disposed of.