1984 (5) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under s. 61 of the E.D. Act, 1953 and order passed regarding preliminary objection raised by petitioner.
2. Jurisdiction of Assistant Controller to rectify mistakes in the order after the appellate order.
3. Doctrine of merger and its applicability in the case.
4. Scope of appeal under s. 62 of the Act and the rights of the Department to file an appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the notice issued under s. 61 of the E.D. Act, 1953, and the order regarding a preliminary objection. The dispute arose from the assessment of estate duty on properties inherited by the petitioner from the deceased. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Assistant Controller in issuing the notice.

2. The main issue was whether the Assistant Controller had the authority to rectify any mistakes in the assessment order after the appellate order. The petitioner argued that if any rectification was needed, it should have been done by the appellate authority and not the Assistant Controller. The petitioner's counsel cited various High Court decisions based on the doctrine of merger.

3. The court analyzed the nature of the appellate order and the scope of s. 62 of the Act, which governs the provision of appeal. It was found that the petitioner's appeal was limited to specific properties, and the doctrine of merger would only apply to those properties. The court held that the entire order of the Assistant Controller did not merge with the appellate authority's order, only to the extent indicated.

4. Under s. 62 of the Act, any person objecting to valuation or orders determining duty may file an appeal to the Appellate Controller. The Department does not have the right to file an appeal under this section. In this case, the petitioner's appeal was confined to specific property valuations, and the Department's order did not merge entirely with the appellate authority's order.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, stating that the notice and order's validity could not be challenged on the grounds raised by the petitioner. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, and no costs were awarded.