9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of deceased's domicile based on a letter dated September 16, 1979. 2. Conflict between charging section 5 of the Estate Duty Act and section 15 of the Indian Succession Act. 3. Consideration of evidence and circumstances to determine deceased's domicile of choice. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference application under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, involving the domicile of the deceased, who was claimed to have a domicile in Bahrain. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of a letter dated September 16, 1979, written by the deceased to her husband, indicating her intention to stay in Bahrain. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty initially rejected the claim based on the letter, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reversed this decision, emphasizing the importance of the letter in determining the deceased's domicile. The appellate authority also considered the statutory provisions of section 15 of the Indian Succession Act regarding the domicile of a married woman following that of her husband. Subsequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, analyzed various pieces of evidence, including certificates from banks and a medical practice license from Bahrain. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department, casting doubts on the veracity of the deceased's intention to change domicile based solely on the letter. The tribunal considered the deceased's familial ties and her investment in properties in India as conflicting with the claim of a domicile of choice in Bahrain. The High Court, upon reviewing the contents of the letter and the tribunal's findings, concurred with the tribunal's decision. The court opined that the letter did not convincingly establish the deceased's intention to change domicile, suggesting it was more about her health concerns and temporary stay in Bahrain. The court upheld the tribunal's conclusion that the deceased's domicile of choice was not adequately proven, considering all circumstances and evidence on record. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming the tribunal's decision and declining the accountable person's claim regarding the deceased's domicile. The judgment was forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
|
