1983 (11) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Whether the amount returned from an annuity deposit to the estate of a deceased individual is includible in the income of the estate.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat considered the assessment year 1971-72, where an amount of Rs. 6,636 was returned from an annuity deposit to the estate of a deceased individual. The legal representative of the deceased contended that this amount should not be included in the estate's income but in the hands of the executor. Initially, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the amount in the estate's income. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disagreed and directed the deletion of the amount. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which held that the amount was indeed part of the estate's income based on a previous court decision. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the AAC's order. The Tribunal then framed a question for the High Court to determine the inclusion of the Rs. 6,636 in the deceased's estate income.

The High Court referred to a previous case, CIT v. Narottamdas K. Nawab, where it was established that annuity deposits received by the legal representative or nominee of a deceased depositor are considered income and not a return of capital. The Division Bench in the previous case concluded that under the Income Tax Act, the annuity payments are to be assessed as income in the hands of the nominee or legal representative. Therefore, the High Court in the current case aligned with the precedent set in the Narottamdas K. Nawab case and held that the amount in question should be included in the income of the deceased's estate.

Following the judgment, the assessee's representative made an oral application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, citing a substantial question of law and referencing a Supreme Court decision. The High Court agreed that the matter involved a substantial question of law due to the conflicting decisions and granted the certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The oral application was allowed with no costs imposed.