9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether property passed on to the accountable person on the death of the deceased. 2. Justification of inclusion of property in the dutiable estate by the Assistant Controller. 3. Interpretation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its impact on property rights. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved determining whether any property passed on to the accountable person upon the death of the deceased. The deceased's husband had died in 1944, leaving her as the sole heir. The deceased adopted a son in 1966. The Appellate Controller relied on Supreme Court judgments and held that the property did not pass on to the accountable person. The Appellate Tribunal disagreed with this view, stating that the deceased became the absolute owner of the property devolved on her husband's death, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the adopted son was held accountable to pay estate duty as the property rights had passed on to him. Issue 2: The Assistant Controller had included the property in the dutiable estate of the deceased, invoking the provisions of section 9 of the Estate Duty Act. The Appellate Controller directed the exclusion of the property based on legal interpretations of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act and the impact of adoption on property rights. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering various legal arguments and case laws, concluded that the Appellate Controller's decision was incorrect. They held that the property rights had passed on to the adopted son, making him liable to pay estate duty. Issue 3: The interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, played a crucial role in determining the property rights in this case. Section 14(1) of the Act states that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as the full owner. The Tribunal emphasized that this provision made the deceased the absolute owner of the property devolved on her husband's death. Relying on various legal precedents, including Supreme Court judgments and High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the adoption of a son after the commencement of the Act did not divest the deceased's property rights. Therefore, the adopted son was deemed accountable for paying estate duty as the rightful inheritor of the property. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the revenue, overturning the decision of the Appellate Controller and restoring the order passed by the Assistant Controller for the inclusion of the property in the dutiable estate.
|
