9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Includibility of assets held benami by the deceased's wife in the estate of the deceased. 2. Valuation and inclusion of goodwill in the estate of the deceased. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Includibility of Assets Held Benami by the Deceased's Wife: The primary issue was whether the assets standing in the name of the deceased's wife, which were claimed to be held benami for the deceased, could be included in the principal value of the estate assessable under the Estate Duty Act. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty concluded that the assets were purchased by the deceased in his wife's name benami and included them in the estate. The Appellate Controller upheld this view, stating that even if the assets were considered gifts, the deceased had not been entirely excluded from possession and enjoyment, thus attracting Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. Before the Tribunal, the benami nature of the assets was not contested, and it was assumed that the accountable person (the wife) was a benamidar. The Tribunal, however, held that in benami transactions, the real owner (the deceased) could not be said to be competent to dispose of the assets, thus directing the deletion of the value of these assets from the estate. The High Court, however, disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation. It emphasized that under Section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, the benamidar holds the property for the benefit of the person paying the consideration, i.e., the deceased. The Court cited various precedents, including Yelamanchili Pitchayya v. Yelamanchili Rattamma and Petheperumal Chetty v. Muniandy Servai, to establish that the real ownership vested in the deceased. Consequently, the assets held benami by the wife were includible in the estate under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act. 2. Valuation and Inclusion of Goodwill: The second issue was whether the goodwill of the rice-mill business, in which the deceased was a partner, should be included in the estate and its valuation. The Assistant Controller had estimated the goodwill at Rs. 14,115, while the Appellate Controller reduced this to Rs. 9,410. The Tribunal, however, found that the rice-mill had no goodwill as it had no quota rights or peculiar features, thus deleting the addition of Rs. 9,410. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's finding that there was no goodwill was not specifically challenged in the reference. Consequently, the Court could not address the existence of the goodwill. Since the Tribunal found no goodwill, the addition of Rs. 9,410 was unjustified. Conclusion: The High Court answered the question in T.C. No. 272 of 1970 affirmatively and in favor of the revenue, confirming that the assets held benami by the deceased's wife were includible in the estate. The question in T.C. No. 405 of 1971 was answered affirmatively but against the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's finding that there was no goodwill to be included in the estate. No order as to costs was made in either case.
|
