1990 (1) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appealability of order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act.
2. Validity of rectification notice served on only one legal representative.
3. Mistake apparent on the face of the record for rectification under section 61.

Analysis:

1. Appealability of order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act:
The Tribunal referred questions regarding the appealability of an order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing an appeal from such an order. However, citing precedents from the Kerala and Gujarat High Courts, the court held that if the accountable person disputes the liability to pay estate duty due to a rectification order, an appeal is competent under section 62(1)(b) of the Act. The wide wording of the provisions supports the appealability of such orders.

2. Validity of rectification notice served on only one legal representative:
The issue arose regarding the validity of serving rectification notices on only one legal representative out of several. The court referred to a Gujarat High Court decision emphasizing the necessity of serving notices on all legal representatives for a valid representation of the deceased's estate. As the notice was served on only one legal representative in this case, the court agreed with the Tribunal that the proceedings for rectification were not validly initiated, rendering the order of rectification void.

3. Mistake apparent on the face of the record for rectification under section 61:
The Tribunal also considered whether there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record for rectification under section 61 of the Act. Citing the Supreme Court's criteria that a mistake must be obvious and patent, the court agreed with the Tribunal that the issue of whether the deceased had full interest in the property was debatable. Therefore, the Assistant Controller lacked jurisdiction to rectify the order of assessment. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision against rectification.

In conclusion, the court answered all three questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper legal representation in estate matters and the stringent criteria for rectification based on apparent mistakes on the record. The decision was made in the absence of the assessee, and no costs were awarded.