9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Provisional assessment under the E.D. Act, 1953 - Claimed deductions for estate duty liability and probate duty - Disputed questions of law - Validity of the provisional assessment order - Whether the Controller can ignore the claims made by the accountable person. Analysis: The petitioners, as accountable persons under the E.D. Act, 1953, filed an account of the deceased's property for estate duty assessment. They claimed deductions for estate duty liability and probate duty. The Controller issued a provisional assessment order without considering these deductions, demanding a higher amount. The petitioners contended that the provisional assessment should be based solely on the accounts provided by them, citing Section 57(1) of the Act. The court agreed, emphasizing that a provisional assessment is summary in nature and must rely on the accountable person's accounts, as per the decision in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 799. The Controller's failure to consider the claimed deductions raised disputed questions of law. The Revenue argued that previous decisions from other High Courts and the Income-tax Tribunal supported disregarding estate duty paid by the accountable person in calculating the estate's value. However, since there was no specific ruling from the Bombay High Court or the Supreme Court on this matter, the court held that the disputed questions of law raised by the petitioners could not be considered settled. As a result, the provisional assessment order and the demand notice were set aside, allowing for a fresh assessment based on the petitioners' claims. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the provisional assessment order and the demand notice. The Controller was directed to conduct a fresh provisional assessment considering the deductions claimed by the accountable persons. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
