1994 (3) TMI 129 - AT - Income Tax

Estate Duty, Female Member, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Women s Rights To Property Act, 1937, Property Passing

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of interest in the firm of M/s Reva.
2. Deletion of the value of foreign movable property owned by the deceased.
3. Chargeability of deceased's interest in the HUF of Ambalal Sarabhai.

Issue 1:
The first issue in the judgment pertains to the reduction of interest in the firm of M/s Reva. The Accountable Person disclosed the deceased's interest in the partnership firm at Rs. 4,32,758, which was increased by the Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty to Rs. 5,57,340 due to revaluation of immovable property. The first appellate authority determined the property value at Rs. 4,31,050, based on previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, upholding the first appellate authority's decision as justified.

Issue 2:
The second issue involves the deletion of the value of foreign movable property owned by the deceased. The CED (Appeals) confirmed the deletion, citing the confiscation of assets by the Government of Uganda, rendering them without market value. This decision was supported by a previous ITAT ruling in a similar case, thus rejecting the revenue's appeal on this ground.

Issue 3:
The third issue concerns the chargeability of the deceased's interest in the HUF of Ambalal Sarabhai. The CED (Appeals) held that the deceased, being a female member, was not a co-parcener in the HUF, and therefore her interest was not chargeable to duty. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with this finding, citing legal precedents and statutory provisions under the Hindu Succession Act to determine that the deceased's interest in the HUF property was indeed dutiable. The matter was remanded back to the CED (Appeals) for further consideration on related points.

Assessee's Appeal:
The assessee's appeal primarily focused on the valuation of shares of Reva Investments Pvt. Ltd. The CED (Appeals) had confirmed the share value at Rs. 209 per share, while the assessee claimed Rs. 50 per share. The Tribunal, after considering relevant legal provisions and precedents, directed the CED (Appeals) to reevaluate the share value in accordance with the Tribunal's decision in another case, emphasizing the statutory method for valuation.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed both the departmental appeal and the Accountable Person's appeal, addressing various valuation and chargeability issues related to the deceased's estate. The judgment provides detailed analyses of each issue, citing legal principles and precedents to support the decisions rendered.