9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of Rs. 82,702 under Sections 10 and 27 of the Estate Duty Act. 2. Inclusion of Rs. 6,364 as deceased's share of goodwill of the firm. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of Rs. 82,702 under Sections 10 and 27 of the Estate Duty Act The court examined whether the amount of Rs. 82,702, which the deceased had thrown into the common hotch-potch of the family, would attract the application of Sections 10 and 27 of the Estate Duty Act. The Assistant Controller had included this amount in the estate of the deceased. The Tribunal, however, disagreed, stating that throwing one's property into the common hotch-potch does not constitute a disposition or conveyance under Section 27. The court held that the act of throwing property into the common stock of the family is a unilateral act and does not constitute a "disposition" as defined under Section 27. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Goli Eswariah v. CGT, which established that such an act does not involve a transfer of property. Therefore, Section 27 was not applicable. Regarding the deposit of Rs. 48,103 in the HUF account, the court referred to the Full Bench decision in CED v. Thanwar Dass and the Supreme Court's decision in CED v. N. R. Ramarathnam, which held that the donor must be deemed to have excluded himself from the benefit of the gifted property if the money remains in the firm. Thus, this amount could not be treated as property deemed to pass on the donor's death under Section 10. Issue 2: Inclusion of Rs. 6,364 as deceased's share of goodwill of the firm The court examined whether the goodwill of the firm, in which the deceased was a partner, should be included in the estate. The Assistant Controller had included Rs. 6,364 as the deceased's share of the goodwill. The Tribunal, however, excluded this amount, relying on decisions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court. The court held that goodwill is an asset of the firm and passes to the legal representatives of a deceased partner. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Khushal Khemgar Shah v. Mst. Khorshed Banu, which established that the share of a partner in the assets of a firm, including goodwill, devolves on his legal representatives unless explicitly stated otherwise in the partnership deed. The court further noted that goodwill must be valued at the date of death and included in the valuation of the estate passing. The court rejected the Tribunal's reliance on decisions that excluded goodwill from the estate, stating that those decisions were based on specific facts not applicable to the present case. Conclusion: The court answered the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the accountable person, and against the department, holding that the amount of Rs. 82,702 should not be included in the estate under Sections 10 and 27. The second question was answered in the negative, in favor of the department, and against the accountable person, holding that the deceased's share of goodwill should be included in the estate. There was no order as to costs due to the divided success.
|
