9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the deceased had given up the domicile of origin and acquired a new Malayan domicile. 2. Whether the accountable person discharged the onus to show that the domicile of origin was superseded by a domicile of choice. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the deceased had given up the domicile of origin and acquired a new Malayan domicile. The court examined whether the deceased, Shri Ramanathan Chettiar, had abandoned his domicile of origin in India and acquired a domicile of choice in Malaya. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty both concluded that the deceased had not abandoned his Indian domicile. However, the Tribunal initially took a contrary view, stating that the deceased was domiciled in Malaya at the time of his death. Upon further review, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reassess the matter. The Tribunal, after reconsideration, maintained that the deceased was domiciled in Malaya. The court emphasized that the domicile of origin continues unless a clear and settled intention to abandon it and acquire another domicile is shown. This principle was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah, which highlighted that a domicile of choice requires both physical presence and the intention to reside permanently. The court scrutinized the deceased's life events, noting his frequent travels between India and Malaya for business purposes. Despite his prolonged stays in Malaya, the court found that his physical presence there was primarily for business, not indicative of an intention to permanently settle. The retention of ancestral properties in India, visits to family, and the fact that his wife and children resided permanently in India further supported the conclusion that he had not abandoned his Indian domicile. The court also considered the deceased's acquisition of a Malayan passport and citizenship, but concluded that these actions were motivated by business expediency rather than an intention to change domicile. The court cited Lord Atkin's distinction between naturalization and domicile, emphasizing that obtaining a passport does not necessarily indicate a change of domicile. The court found that the Tribunal had overemphasized certain factors, such as the deceased's Malayan passport and citizenship, without adequately considering other significant circumstances, like his continued ties to India. The court concluded that the deceased had not abandoned his Indian domicile. Issue 2: Whether the accountable person discharged the onus to show that the domicile of origin was superseded by a domicile of choice. The court reiterated that the burden of proving a change of domicile lies with those asserting it. The accountable person needed to demonstrate that the deceased had formed a fixed and settled intention to make Malaya his permanent home. The court found that the accountable person failed to meet this burden. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT, which emphasized the necessity of considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The court concluded that the Tribunal had not adequately considered several key factors, such as the deceased's retention of properties in India, his family's residence in India, and his visits to India for family matters. The court also addressed the deceased's will, which declared his domicile in Malaya. The court noted that declarations in a will are not conclusive and must be considered in light of other facts and circumstances. The court cited several cases, including Attorney-General v. Yule and Mercantile Bank of India and Liddell Grainger's Will Trusts, to support the principle that declarations in a will are not decisive in determining domicile. The court concluded that the accountable person had not discharged the onus of proving that the deceased had abandoned his Indian domicile and acquired a Malayan domicile. The court answered the questions referred in T.C. No. 114 of 1980 and T.C. No. 462 of 1986 in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, and awarded costs to the Revenue. Conclusion: The court concluded that the deceased, Shri Ramanathan Chettiar, had not abandoned his domicile of origin in India and had not acquired a domicile of choice in Malaya. The accountable person failed to discharge the burden of proving a change of domicile. The court's decision was in favor of the Revenue, and costs were awarded to the Revenue.
|
