9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of estate duty on properties claimed as HUF, determination of deceased's share in agricultural land, interpretation of bhumidhari rights under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, consideration of genealogical table for determining bhumidhari interest. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad addressed two references concerning the assessment of estate duty on properties claimed as Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) by the accountable person, Smt. Sheila Prasad. The deceased, Col. Ajit Prasad, had a share in an orchard and land, which the Asst. Controller found not corroborated as HUF property in land records. The Appellate Tribunal held that the agricultural land belonged to all coparceners jointly under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, reducing the deceased's share to 1/4 from 1/2 as assessed initially. The Controller of Estate Duty sought clarification on two legal questions: ownership of agricultural land by HUF or coparceners and the deceased's share in the property. The Tribunal declined to refer the first question but referred the second question to the High Court. The Court, based on the Supreme Court decision in Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., affirmed the Tribunal's view that bhumidhari rights under the Act were new and not possessed by the deceased earlier, supporting the Tribunal's decision. Regarding the deceased's share in the agricultural land, the Court emphasized the importance of determining the bhumidhari interest based on the birth of Ajit Prasad's son, Anil Prasad, concerning the Act's applicability date. It noted the Tribunal's oversight in not considering the genealogical table for this determination. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider this aspect before finalizing the deceased's share, indicating a lack of justification in the Tribunal's previous decision. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment on the deceased's share in the agricultural land, instructing the matter to return to the Appellate Tribunal for further consideration in light of the Court's observations. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, concluding the judgment.
|
