1974 (6) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Levy of estate duty on 16 acres of land passed on the death of the deceased under sections 9 and 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of 16 acres of land in the estate of the deceased for the purpose of imposing estate duty. The deceased had initially transferred land to Seetharamamma, but later executed deeds transferring the same land to his brother-in-law's son and wife. A compromise was reached where Seetharamamma retained eight acres, and the remaining eight acres were transferred to the brother-in-law's son and wife. The revenue contended that all 16 acres should be included in the estate. The Tribunal, however, held that only the eight acres transferred to the brother-in-law's son and wife should be included.

The memorandum of compromise between the parties was crucial in determining the rights over the land. It was observed that the settlement deed in favor of Seetharamamma was canceled, and the settlement deed in favor of the brother-in-law's son and wife was ratified under the compromise. Consequently, the six acres transferred to the brother-in-law's son and wife fell within the scope of section 9 of the Estate Duty Act and was liable for inclusion in the deceased's estate for estate duty purposes.

Regarding the remaining ten acres transferred to Seetharamamma, the compromise affirmed the sale deed executed in her favor. It was agreed that Seetharamamma would relinquish her rights in two acres to the brother-in-law's son and wife, indicating a gift by Seetharamamma. As this transfer occurred more than six years before the deceased's death, it was held that no estate duty could be levied on these ten acres.

The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the ten acres transferred to Seetharamamma and reversed it on the six acres transferred to the brother-in-law's son and wife. The matter of the land's value was remanded to the Tribunal for determination. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the circumstances of the case.