9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Deductibility of provision for marriage of deceased Hindu's unmarried daughter in estate duty computation. Analysis: The judgment addressed the issue of whether a provision for the marriage of a deceased Hindu's unmarried daughter can be allowed as a deductible debt in the computation of estate duty. The deceased left an estate comprising ancestral property and self-acquisitions, survived by his wife and minor daughter. The widow claimed a deduction for the daughter's marriage expenses, which was initially denied by the Asst. Controller but allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Department challenged this decision, arguing that the obligation to meet marriage expenses ends with the father's death. However, the court held that under Hindu law, a daughter can enforce her right against ancestral property for marriage expenses independently of the father's personal obligation, citing legal precedents. The court emphasized that the Hindu father's obligation to provide for his daughter's marriage is well-established in Hindu law, and the daughter's right to claim against ancestral property is distinct from any personal obligation of the father. The court also highlighted the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which address the father's obligation but do not automatically charge his property posthumously unless specified. The court clarified that estate duty is levied on the net value after deductions, including debts and encumbrances. In this case, the provision for the daughter's marriage was considered a debt enforceable against ancestral property and thus deductible under section 44 of the Act. Regarding a settlement made by the deceased for the daughter's marriage, the court rejected the argument that such a settlement absolves the father of his obligation, emphasizing that the obligation is fulfilled only by the actual performance of the marriage. The court also dismissed the argument that the settlement should negate the deduction claim, stating that estate duty and equity are separate considerations. The court further explained that the estate duty provisions do not generally allow deductions for statutory fictions like property deemed to pass under certain sections of the Act. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the accountable person, allowing the deduction for the daughter's marriage provision as a debt against ancestral property. The court clarified the construction of section 44, stating that liabilities like marriage expenses for unmarried daughters in a Hindu family are deductible under the general provisions of the section if the deceased possessed ancestral or coparcenary property to cover the liability. The Department was ordered to pay the costs of the reference, and the judgment favored the accountable person in this matter.
|
