9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the property held by the nominal owner should be included in the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the nominal owner? Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the inclusion of a property, registered in the name of a nominal owner, in the estate passing on her death. The deceased, Smt. Bagirathiammal, had purchased a property in Bangalore using funds provided by her husband, the accountable person. The accountable person claimed that the property belonged to him, and Bagirathiammal was a benamidar. The Appellate Controller and the Tribunal accepted this claim based on various pieces of evidence, such as monthly remittances from the husband to the wife for maintenance, transfer of funds for property purchase, joint mortgages, and lack of independent income sources for Bagirathiammal. The Tribunal concluded that Bagirathiammal was a benamidar, and the property belonged to the accountable person. The judgment refers to the Supreme Court's decision in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28, stating that a finding of a transaction being benami is a question of fact and not a legal principle. The court held that the finding in this case, based on substantial evidence, cannot be considered perverse or unsupported. Therefore, the court answered the reference question in the affirmative, against the department, indicating that the property held by the nominal owner was not includible in the principal value of the estate passing on her death. In conclusion, the judgment establishes the principle that the determination of a benami transaction is a factual inquiry based on evidence. In this case, the court upheld the findings of the Tribunal that the deceased was a benamidar, and the property rightfully belonged to the accountable person, thereby excluding it from the estate for estate duty assessment.
|
