9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the rectification of the original order of assessment under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act can be legally sustained? 2. Whether the order of the Assistant Controller can be sustained on merits? 3. Whether the rectification order manifestly fell outside the scope of section 61 of the Estate Duty Act? 4. Whether the value of the deceased's share in the firm was accepted after due deliberation by the Assistant Controller? Detailed Analysis: 1. The accountable person filed a return regarding the estate of the deceased, showing the value of the deceased's share in a firm at Rs. 1,29,625. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty accepted this value after examining necessary records and obtaining clarification from the accountable person. Subsequently, the Assistant Controller rectified the assessment under section 61 of the E.D. Act, stating that the share value was taken at Rs. 1,29,625 by oversight instead of the correct figure of Rs. 3,75,336. The Appellate Controller held that the rectification could not be legally sustained as it was based on a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts, falling outside the scope of section 61. 2. An appeal was made to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which agreed with the Appellate Controller's view. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Controller had accepted the value of the deceased's share after due consideration of all materials, including the balance-sheet and the accountable person's explanation. Since the original assessment was not made by oversight but after deliberation, the Tribunal held that rectification under section 61 could not be made in this case, indicating that the order of the Assistant Controller could not be sustained on merits. 3. Section 61 of the E.D. Act allows rectification of an order based on a mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the Assistant Controller did not commit any mistake, as the accountable person had provided a balance-sheet showing the share value at Rs. 3,75,336. The Assistant Controller accepted the lower value of Rs. 1,29,625 after due verification, indicating that the value determination was not an oversight but a deliberate decision. Therefore, the decision of the Appellate Controller and the Tribunal that section 61 could not be invoked was deemed justified, as the rectification order fell outside the scope of the provision. 4. The judgment concluded that since the value of the deceased's share in the firm was accepted after due deliberation by the Assistant Controller, there was no basis to claim that it was done by oversight. Consequently, the court dismissed the tax case petition, stating that there was no justification for directing a reference in this case and awarded no costs.
|
