1979 (8) TMI 41 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Controller can consider fresh evidence in an appeal against an assessment made under section 58(4) of the Estate Duty Act, and if there are any limitations on this power.
2. Whether the order of the Appellate Controller in this case has been rightly upheld.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, concerning the estate duty assessment following the death of an individual. The deceased had various properties and family members, and certain settlement deeds and a trust deed were executed before his death. The Assistant Controller made an assessment of the estate, which was challenged by the surviving trustee in an appeal before the Appellate Controller. The Appellate Controller made adjustments to the valuation of properties and capital in businesses, reducing certain values and profits estimated by the Assistant Controller.

The department appealed to the Tribunal against the Appellate Controller's order, arguing that the assessment should not have been reduced. The Tribunal held that the Appellate Controller had the power to consider materials on record and make further inquiries. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, leading to the two questions referred for opinion by the High Court.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Estate Duty Act related to assessment and appeal, highlighting that the Act does not differentiate the scope and jurisdiction of the Appellate Controller based on the subsection under which the assessment was made. Comparisons were drawn with the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the broader powers of the appellate authority in dealing with best judgment assessments. The High Court agreed with a previous decision regarding the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to make inquiries and examine assessments beyond the materials available during the initial assessment.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the Appellate Controller was justified in examining the valuation and includibility of properties, and the exercise of powers in this case was not erroneous. The questions referred were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the accountable person. No costs were awarded in the judgment.