9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the house at 103, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay, or any part thereof was property belonging to the deceased as contemplated under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Whether the accountable person was entitled to the exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the E.D. Act, 1953. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Property Belonging to the Deceased The primary issue was whether the house at 103, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay, or any part thereof, was property belonging to the deceased, Banoobai, under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Tribunal found that Banoobai only had a right of free residence during her lifetime and that the house property vested in the trustees. Therefore, it could not be said that the house belonged to the deceased. The court noted that "the property in respect of which a claim for exemption under s. 33(1)(n) is made must satisfy the description or the requirements of the relevant clause." The court concluded that the house was not exclusively used by the deceased for her residence, as Banoobai and her daughters were entitled to occupy the premises. Thus, the essential ingredient of s. 33(1)(n) was not satisfied. Issue 2: Entitlement to Exemption The second issue was whether the accountable person was entitled to the exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the E.D. Act, 1953. This question depended on the resolution of the first issue. The court referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CED v. Estate of late Sanka Simhachalam, which interpreted the words "belonging to" in s. 33(1) to include possession of an interest less than full ownership. However, the court distinguished the present case by stating that Banoobai had only a right of free residence, which did not meet the requirements of s. 33(1)(n). The court emphasized that the property must "belong to the deceased" and be "exclusively used by the deceased for his residence." Since Banoobai did not have ownership or exclusive use of the house, the exemption under s. 33(1)(n) was not applicable. Conclusion The court concluded that the accountable person was not entitled to the exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the E.D. Act. The right of free residence held by Banoobai did not constitute ownership or exclusive use of the property as required by the statute. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and both questions were answered in the negative, against the accountable person. The court stated, "In the view which we have taken, it is not possible to find any fault with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the accountable person is not entitled to claim exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the E.D. Act." Final Judgment Both questions were answered in the negative and against the accountable person, with no order as to costs.
|
