9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of notices issued under Sections 59(a) and 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Whether the right to receive enhanced compensation is "property" for estate duty purposes. 3. Whether the non-disclosure of land acquisition proceedings and pending references amounts to omission or failure to disclose material facts. 4. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 59(a) was justified. 5. Whether the rectification under Section 61 was a case of mistake apparent from the record or a change of opinion. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Validity of Notices Issued Under Sections 59(a) and 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953: The Supreme Court examined the legality and validity of two notices issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Hyderabad, under Sections 59(a) and 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The notices were issued to reopen and rectify estate duty assessments based on enhanced compensation awarded by the Civil Court for lands acquired by the government. 2. Whether the Right to Receive Enhanced Compensation is "Property" for Estate Duty Purposes: The Court held that the right to receive compensation for lands acquired by the government is "property" and passes on the death of the deceased. This right is indivisible and includes the right to receive enhanced compensation. The Court stated, "The right to receive compensation for the lands acquired by the Government, at their market value on the date of acquisition is one and indivisible right." 3. Whether the Non-Disclosure of Land Acquisition Proceedings and Pending References Amounts to Omission or Failure to Disclose Material Facts: The Court noted that the non-disclosure of pending land acquisition references by the accountable person was a primary and material fact. The High Court held that this non-disclosure amounted to an omission or failure, which could lead the assessing authority to a reasonable belief that property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment. 4. Whether the Reopening of Assessment Under Section 59(a) was Justified: The Court found that the notice under Section 59(a) was issued on the wrong basis. The notice was based on the assumption that the acquired lands still formed part of the estate of the deceased and had been undervalued. The Court stated, "The very issuance of the notice under s. 59(a) which was done on a basis clearly unsustainable in law is liable to be quashed on this ground." Consequently, the reassessment made pursuant to the notice was also quashed. 5. Whether the Rectification Under Section 61 was a Case of Mistake Apparent from the Record or a Change of Opinion: The Court held that the notice under Section 61 was not a case of rectification of any mistake apparent from the record but a change of opinion regarding the valuation of the acquired lands. The Court observed, "In substance, it cannot be said to be a case of rectification of any mistake apparent from the record but the respondent is really seeking to change his opinion about the valuation of the acquired lands because some other authority, namely, the Civil Court has valued the same differently." The notice and the subsequent rectification order were quashed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the notices issued under Sections 59(a) and 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as well as the subsequent reassessment and rectification orders. The Court emphasized that the right to receive compensation is property, but the notices were issued on incorrect bases and constituted a change of opinion rather than rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The revenue was ordered to pay the costs of the appeals to the appellants.
|
