9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (5) TMI 35 - SC - Indian LawsWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act 1953 were applicable to this case ? Held that - The deceased gifted 25, 000 to each of his four sons and almost immediately thereafter the firm of Sanghi Brothers was constituted as aforesaid in which the said four sons invested 25, 000 each received from the father. As already pointed out the father as well as the sons had shares in the said partnership.In these circumstances it cannot be said that by reason of constitution of the said partnership and the investment of the said amounts by the sons in the partnership the donees sons had not assumed bona fide possession and enjoyment of the amounts gifted to them or that they had not retained the same to the entire exclusion of their father. In our opinion the said amount of 1 lakh could not be included in the estate of the said deceased under the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. Appeal allowed in favour of the accountable person (appellant).
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 The central question referred to the Rajasthan High Court was whether the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were applicable in this case. The relevant facts are that the deceased made a gift of Rs. 1 lakh to his four sons, each receiving Rs. 25,000. These amounts were subsequently invested in a firm where the deceased and his sons were partners. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the gifted amount in the deceased's estate, invoking section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, which was contested by the accountable person and led to a series of appeals. Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act: Section 10 states: "Property taken under any gift, whenever made, shall be deemed to pass on the donor's death to the extent that bona fide possession and enjoyment of it was not immediately assumed by the donee and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise." Arguments and Analysis: - The Additional Solicitor-General argued that since the amounts were invested in a firm where the donor was a partner, the donor retained an interest and benefit in the amount, thus section 10 was applicable. - The counsel for the accountable person contended that the interest the deceased had in the firm was unrelated to the gift and thus section 10 should not apply. Precedents and Legal Principles: - George da Costa v. CED [1967] 63 ITR 497 (SC): This case emphasized that both conditions in section 10 are cumulative: the donee must assume possession and enjoyment of the property immediately upon the gift and retain it to the exclusion of the donor. - H. R. Munro v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1934] AC 61 (PC): The Privy Council held that the property transferred was excluded from being dutiable because any benefit remaining in the donor was referable to a partnership agreement pre-dating the gift. - Clifford John Chick v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1959] 37 ITR (ED) 89 (PC): Here, the property was included in the estate because the donor retained benefits under a partnership agreement formed after the gift. Supreme Court's Reasoning: - The court referred to CED v. Ramachandra Gounder [1973] 88 ITR 448 (SC), where it was held that the benefit the donor had as a partner was not referable to the gift. - The court also cited CED v. Kamlavati and CED v. Jai Gopal Mehra [1979] 120 ITR 456 (SC), which clarified that the donor's enjoyment of the property as a partner does not attract section 10 unless the enjoyment is referable to the gift. - The court noted that the interest the deceased retained in the partnership was as a partner and not related to the gift. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the interest the deceased retained in the Rs. 1 lakh invested by his sons in the partnership was merely as a partner and not related to the gifts. Therefore, section 10 of the Estate Duty Act was not applicable. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in applying the ratio from Chick's case. The appeal was allowed, and the question was answered in the negative, favoring the accountable person. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs throughout.
|
