9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the records within the meaning of section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Whether an appeal lay to the Appellate Controller against the order made by the Assistant Controller under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Apparent Mistake from Records - Facts and Background: The Controller of Estate Duty initially valued shares at Rs. 101.61 per share. Later, a notice under section 61 was issued to modify this valuation to Rs. 162.27 per share based on the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The respondent objected, arguing that the original valuation was based on a certified valuation by M/s. Lovelock and Lewes, and the rectification was merely a change of opinion. - Assistant Controller's Decision: The Assistant Controller held that there was a mistake apparent from the records and rectified the estate duty assessment order. - Appellate Controller's Decision: The Appellate Controller held that the mistake was not apparent from the records as the issue was debatable and cancelled the rectification order regarding the valuation of shares but upheld it concerning the withdrawal of relief under section 50. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Controller, stating that the issue of applying the Wealth-tax Rules to estate duty proceedings was debatable and not an obvious mistake. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Balaram (T. S.), ITO v. Volkart Brothers, which held that a mistake must be obvious and patent, not one requiring extensive reasoning. - High Court's Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the valuation issue was debatable and did not constitute an apparent mistake from the records. Issue 2: Appeal Against Section 61 Order - Department's Argument: The Department contended that no appeal lay to the Appellate Controller against an order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and hence the appeal was incompetent. - Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the appeal was valid under section 62(1)(a)(i) as it related to the valuation made by the Controller. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal held that an appeal against the valuation made by the Controller was competent under section 62(1)(a)(i), even if the order was made under section 61. - High Court's Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that an appeal against the valuation was permissible under section 62(1)(a)(i). Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no apparent mistake from the records and that an appeal against the valuation made by the Controller was competent under section 62(1)(a)(i). The question referred was answered in the negative and in favor of the accountable person. There was no order as to costs.
|
