9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to rectify the original order of assessment. 2. Validity of the rectification order based on valuation discrepancies. 3. Interpretation of Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. 4. Application of Section 59 and Section 73A in reassessment cases. 5. Consideration of probate proceedings as part of the assessment record. Jurisdiction of Assistant Controller: The petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Mangalore, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the rectification order dated 19th March, 1962. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question. The original assessment was made by the Deputy Collector of Estate Duty, Coimbatore, in 1957, and later rectified by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Bangalore, in 1960 and 1962. Validity of Rectification Order: The Assistant Controller, based on a valuation discrepancy discovered during probate proceedings, issued a notice under Section 61 of the Act to rectify the assessment. The petitioner objected, arguing that no mistake was apparent in the assessment records, and the rectification was not justified. The Assistant Controller enhanced the estate duty based on the valuation determined by the District Judge, leading to the petitioner's challenge on the legality of the enhancement. Interpretation of Section 61: The petitioner's counsel contended that the Assistant Controller did not discover any mistake from the assessment records but changed the valuation based on another authority's assessment. The court agreed, emphasizing that Section 61 allows rectification only for mistakes apparent from the assessment record itself. Citing a Supreme Court decision on the Indian Income-tax Act, the court clarified the scope of rectification under Section 61, emphasizing the need for a mistake to be evident from the assessment record. Application of Section 59 and Section 73A: The court analyzed the applicability of Section 59 concerning escaped assessment and Section 73A imposing limitations on reassessment. It was noted that the case did not fall under Section 61 but might have been considered under Section 59 if not for the limitation period specified in Section 73A. The court highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory limitations in estate duty reassessment cases. Probate Proceedings as Assessment Record: The revenue contended that probate proceedings should be considered part of the assessment record, citing Section 50 of the Act. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the probate record becomes relevant only for deductions after determining the estate duty due. The court clarified that, when acting under Section 61, the assessing authority should only consider the assessment-related record, not other proceedings like probate records. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the rectification order. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and limitations in estate duty assessments and rectifications.
|
