Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The Estate Duty Act, 1953 , has been repealed by Parliament. However, the remnants of various cases continue. This case is an instance. The Controller of Estate Duty has filed this petition under Section 64(3) of the Act. He prays that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty in applying a multiple of 10 against multiple of 12 applied by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty for the valuation of godown ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing a deduction of Rs. 60,000 out of the Hindu undivided family assets for the marriage of unmarried daughters of the deceased relying on article 304 of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, especially when it conceded that the provisions of Section 33(1)(k) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 , are not applicable to the accountable person ?" 2. So far as the first question is concerned, it deserves notice that the Tribunal has found it reasonable to apply a multiple of 10 in view of the rate of interest which prevailed on the material date, viz., November 9, 1982. Mr. Sawhney has referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. Prem Nath Anand [1977] 108 ITR 549. In this case, it is undoubtedly correct that a multiple of 12 had been applied. However, the rate of interest, etc., in March 1973, was much lower than in November, 1982. The Tribunal has taken the view that the rate of interest on long term fixed deposit is a relevant factor for adopting the multiplier. The view taken by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It has committed no error. It cannot be said that the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiple of 10. 3. As for the second question, the Tribunal had allowed the deduction of Rs. 60,000 out of the assets of the Hindu undivided family for the marriage of unmarried daughters. It had adopted the principles of Hindu law as a yardstick. Mr. It cannot be said that the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiple of 10. 3. As for the second question, the Tribunal had allowed the deduction of Rs. 60,000 out of the assets of the Hindu undivided family for the marriage of unmarried daughters. It had adopted the principles of Hindu law as a yardstick. Mr. Sawhney contends that under the provisions of Section 33(1)(k), a deduction to the extent of Rs. 10,000 only could have been applied. 4. On a perusal of the file, we find that the Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals) had noticed the order passed by the assessing authority and observed that the point regarding deduction had been "conceded in favour of the accountable person". It was further observed that it was "just by omission that deduction has not been allowed out of the assets of the Hindu undivided family . ." The order of the Controller was upheld by the Tribunal. Still further, it may be observed that the Tribunal was concerned with the valuation of interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property. It was considering the matter under Section 39(1). The interest of daughters could not have been excluded. 5. No other point has been raised. 6. In view of the above, we find that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal was just and fair. We are satisfied with the correctness of the decision. Thus, no question of law which may require expression of opinion by this court arises. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs.