9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disbursement of Rs. 90,005 by the deceased to his five sons amounts to a gift under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Whether the transaction can be considered a partition of property among the members of the Hindu undivided family. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the disbursement of Rs. 90,005 by the deceased to his five sons amounts to a gift under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953: The core issue is whether the distribution of Rs. 90,005 by the deceased to his five sons is considered a gift, thereby attracting the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty initially determined that the disbursement amounted to a gift. This view was upheld by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty but reversed by the Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that the disbursement was a partition based on the decision in Kisansing Mohansing Balwar v. Vishnu Balkrishna Jogalekar. The court analyzed whether the deceased intended to gift the amount or partition it among his sons. The accountable person argued that the distribution was a notional partition, supported by five circumstances: equal distribution to each son, single transaction on the same day, account entries indicating equal shares, setting apart amounts for the daughter's marriage and for the deceased himself, and the absence of any mention of a gift in the account entries. However, the court found that these circumstances did not conclusively prove an intention to partition. The mere equal distribution and single transaction could also be consistent with a gift. The absence of the word "gift" in the account entries and the setting apart of amounts for the daughter and the deceased did not necessarily indicate a partition. 2. Whether the transaction can be considered a partition of property among the members of the Hindu undivided family: The accountable person contended that the deceased intended to blend his self-acquired property with the family property and partition it. The Advocate-General argued that clear and unequivocal intention to blend property must be established, and such intention could not be presumed. The court referred to the principles of Hindu law, which allow a member of an undivided family to throw self-acquired property into the common stock, but such intention must be clearly established. The court found no evidence in the account entries or the record to support the claim that the deceased intended to blend his self-acquired property with the family property. The court noted that the decision in Kisansing Mohansing Balwar v. Vishnu Balkrishna Jogalekar was based on presumptions that the father threw his self-acquired property into the common stock and then partitioned it, which was not permissible without clear evidence of intention. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court in C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar ruled out any presumption of intention to partition without clear evidence. The intention to gift or partition must be determined from the facts of each case, and the mere transaction itself does not prove intention. The court concluded that the accountable person failed to show an unequivocal intention by the deceased to blend his self-acquired property with the family property and partition it. Therefore, the transaction amounted to a gift, and the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act applied. Conclusion: The court answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the finding that the deceased did not make a gift of Rs. 90,005 was not justified in law. The transaction was deemed a gift, and the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act were applicable. The reference was disposed of in favor of the revenue, and the respondent-accountable person was ordered to bear the costs of the Controller of Estate Duty.
|
