9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of maintenance allowance claimed by the deceased's widow while computing the dutiable estate. 2. Deduction of estate duty payable by the accountable person in computing the principal value of the estate. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Maintenance Allowance Claimed by the Deceased's Widow: During the assessment proceedings under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the widow of the deceased claimed that her maintenance allowance should be allowed as a permissible deduction while computing the dutiable estate. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty both rejected this claim, relying on previous decisions such as Asst. CED v. N. Sundareswaramurthy and V. Pramila v. CED. The Tribunal also upheld this decision. The accountable person contended that she had two rights: the right to maintenance and the right to succeed to her husband's property upon his death. However, the court noted that under Hindu law, the right of a wife to be maintained by her husband is a personal obligation and is not fixed on any particular property. This right does not create any charge or encumbrance over the husband's property unless it is decreed by a court or agreed upon. The court further analyzed this issue under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Under Section 19(1) of the Act, a widow is maintained by her father-in-law or other heirs, but this right ceases if she inherits the entire estate as a class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court concluded that the right to maintenance did not take a definite shape during the husband's lifetime and thus could not be considered a deduction. The court also referred to the decision in CED v. P. Leelavathamma, which supported the view that the right to maintenance does not create a charge on the property of the deceased and is extinguished upon the death of the husband. The court thus held that the accountable person's claim for maintenance allowance as a deduction was not permissible. 2. Deduction of Estate Duty Payable by the Accountable Person: The second issue was whether the estate duty payable by the accountable person could be deducted in computing the principal value of the estate. The court referred to Section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, which deals with "debts and encumbrances." It was noted that this section primarily refers to debts and encumbrances created by the deceased during their lifetime. The court cited the decision in Rm. Arunachalam v. CED, where it was held that estate duty payable on the estate of the deceased in the hands of the accountable person is not an admissible deduction in computing the principal value of the estate. Consequently, the court concluded that the accountable person could not claim the estate duty payable as a deduction. Conclusion: The court answered both questions against the accountable person. The claim for deduction of maintenance allowance was not permissible, and the estate duty payable could not be deducted in computing the principal value of the estate. There was no order as to costs.
|
