1998 (7) TMI 88 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the amount under the settlement could be aggregated with the other estate of the deceased-settlor, formulated a test to decide when it could be said that the property was such that the deceased never had an interest in it? Held that - Applying the test as laid down in Re Hodson s Settlement 1939 1 All ER 196 (CA), to the present case, prior to the assignment, the deceased clearly had an interest in the life insurance policies. Even after the assignment, had the assignees disclaimed their interest in the policies, the benefit under the policies would have resulted to the deceased or his representatives. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased never had an interest in the life insurance policies for purposes of section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The amount under the three life insurance policies is, therefore, liable to be aggregated with the general estate of the deceased. In view of the above, the other question as to whether the debts under the three policies should be paid out of the general estate of the deceased or out of the insurance money does not now survive. In the premises, we hold that the amounts under the three life insurance policies form a part of the general estate of the deceased and that the amounts under the three life insurance policies have to be aggregated with the general estate of the deceased for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the deceased had any interest in the life insurance policies that passed on his death after assigning them to his grandchildren.
2. Whether the three life insurance policies should be separately assessed to estate duty or aggregated with the general estate of the deceased.
3. Whether the loan amount taken on the insurance policies by the deceased is liable to be deducted from the general estate or the separate estate of the insurance policies.
4. Whether the estate duty payable is liable to be deducted while computing the net estate exigible to duty.
5. Whether the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty acted within jurisdiction in reopening the assessment under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interest in Life Insurance Policies
The court examined whether the deceased had any interest in the life insurance policies after assigning them to his grandchildren. According to section 14(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, money received under a life insurance policy kept up by the assured for the benefit of a nominee or assignee is deemed to pass on the death of the assured. The court concluded that since the deceased had kept up the policies by paying the premiums and managing loans against them, he retained an interest in the policies, which passed on his death. Therefore, the policies were part of the deceased's estate.

Issue 2: Aggregation or Separate Assessment of Policies
The court addressed whether the life insurance policies should be assessed separately or aggregated with the general estate. Under section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, property in which the deceased never had an interest is treated as a separate estate. However, the court found that the deceased had an interest in the policies both before and after the assignment. Applying the test from Re Hodson's Settlement, the court concluded that the policies should be aggregated with the general estate for estate duty purposes.

Issue 3: Loan Amount Deduction
The question was whether the loan amount taken on the insurance policies should be deducted from the general estate or the separate estate of the insurance policies. Given the court's conclusion that the policies form part of the general estate, the issue of whether the debts should be paid out of the general estate or the insurance money did not survive.

Issue 4: Deduction of Estate Duty Payable
The court upheld the High Court's decision that the estate duty payable is not liable to be deducted while computing the net estate exigible to duty, referencing two decisions of the Supreme Court: P. Leelavathamma v. CED and Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur v. CED.

Issue 5: Jurisdiction in Reopening Assessment
Although the question of whether the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty acted within jurisdiction in reopening the assessment was raised, it was not pressed before the Supreme Court. The High Court had upheld the reopening of the assessment and the Tribunal's power to rectify mistakes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the amounts under the three life insurance policies form a part of the general estate of the deceased and must be aggregated with the general estate for determining the rate of estate duty. The court found no merit in the appellants' contentions and upheld the High Court's judgment. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →