1979 (1) TMI 90 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the appealability against an order of rectification under section 62(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat was presented with three cases where the Tribunal referred a common question of law at the instance of the revenue. The issue in question was whether the appeal made by the accountable person against the order of rectification was competent under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 62 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The facts of one case involved the death of an individual, assessment of estate duty, inclusion of share income, rectification of mistakes by the Assistant Controller, and subsequent appeals by the accountable person. The Appellate Controller initially held that no appeal was competent against the order of rectification, but the Tribunal disagreed, citing the wording of section 62(1)(b) of the Act.

In another case, the Tribunal, following its decision in the first case, similarly held that the appeal was maintainable against the order of rectification. The Court referred to a previous judgment by the Gujarat High Court in Mandal Ginning Co.'s case, which discussed the interpretation of the word "assessed" in the context of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court highlighted the difference in language between section 30(1) of the Income-tax Act and section 62(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act, emphasizing that the latter allows an appeal by any person denying liability to the amount of estate duty payable in respect of any property.

The Court further referenced a judgment by the Kerala High Court in CED v. P. E. Venkitraman, which supported the interpretation that an appeal under section 62(1)(b) is warranted if the accountable person denies liability to the estate duty following a rectification order. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 62(1)(b) was correct in all three cases, and therefore, the appeal was rightly held to be maintainable. Consequently, the Court answered the question in favor of the accountable person and directed the revenue to pay the costs of each reference to the accountable person concerned.