9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the deceased retained her domicile of origin in the United States of America, and whether her foreign assets can be included in the estate duty assessment. 2. Whether the department discharged the onus of proving that the deceased abandoned her domicile of origin in favor of Indian domicile. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Retention of Domicile of Origin and Inclusion of Foreign Assets in Estate Duty Assessment: The primary question is whether the deceased retained her domicile of origin in the United States, which would exclude her foreign assets from the estate duty assessment under Section 21 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The deceased, Dr. Ida B. Scuddar, was born in India but was considered to have an American domicile of origin due to her parents' presumed American domicile. Despite her long residence and significant contributions in India, including the establishment of a renowned hospital, the Tribunal initially held that she had not acquired an Indian domicile of choice, thus retaining her American domicile. The court examined the concept of domicile as per the Indian Succession Act, distinguishing between domicile of origin, domicile of choice, and domicile by operation of law. It emphasized that the domicile of origin continues until a new domicile is acquired by taking up a fixed habitation in another country with the intention of residing there indefinitely. The court referred to various legal principles and precedents, including Cheshire's Private International Law and decisions from British courts, to establish that a person's residence in a country is prima facie evidence of domicile, and prolonged residence can raise a presumption of domicile that can only be rebutted by actual removal to a new place. The court highlighted that intention accompanied by conduct determines domicile, and the intention must be to reside permanently in the chosen country. 2. Onus of Proving Abandonment of Domicile of Origin: The second issue is whether the department discharged the onus of proving that Dr. Scuddar abandoned her American domicile of origin in favor of an Indian domicile. The court noted that the domicile of origin adheres unless displaced by satisfactory evidence of acquiring a domicile of choice. The onus is on the party asserting the change of domicile to prove it. The court analyzed Dr. Scuddar's life, noting her long residence in India, her significant contributions to the medical field, and her retirement in Kodaikanal, India. It observed that she had no other home and her visits to the United States were primarily for obtaining resources for her institution in India. The court found no evidence that she considered India a temporary place of stay or intended to return to the United States permanently. The court also examined a passage in Dr. Scuddar's will, which expressed a preference for probate proceedings in New York. It concluded that this passage did not affirm her American domicile but was intended to simplify probate proceedings. The court found that the will's passage had a neutral effect and did not support the Tribunal's conclusion that she retained her American domicile. The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in its reasoning and that the facts clearly indicated Dr. Scuddar's intention to make India her permanent home. The presumption in favor of the domicile of origin was displaced, and her domicile of choice was India. Conclusion: The court answered both questions in the negative and against the accountable person. It held that Dr. Scuddar had acquired an Indian domicile of choice, and her foreign assets were includable in the estate duty assessment. The department had discharged the onus of proving the change of domicile based on the facts of her life. There was no order as to costs.
|
