9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Assessment of estate duty - Relief admissible under s. 31 of the ED Act, 1953 Analysis: 1. The appeal pertains to the assessment of estate duty, specifically focusing on the relief admissible under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The deceased, a partner in a firm, inherited properties from his father upon the latter's death. Subsequently, the deceased passed away within a short period, leading to the properties passing on for the second time in quick succession. 2. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (CED) initially granted relief of Rs. 1,834 under s. 31, following directions from the Board. However, the CED (A) calculated the relief at Rs. 21,682 based on the property passing twice in quick succession. The Department appealed this decision, arguing that the relief should be determined by the Board, not the Assistant Controller. 3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of s. 31, which outline the reduction in estate duty payable on property passing in quick succession. The Board's role is to ascertain the occurrence of estate duty on the same property within five years of the initial passing. Once the Board confirms this, the calculation of relief falls under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Controller, following the specified percentages based on the time elapsed between the deaths. 4. The Departmental Representative contended that the Board should determine the relief amount, limiting the Assistant Controller's discretion. Conversely, the assessee's counsel argued that the Board's role is restricted to confirming the admissibility of quick succession relief, while the calculation and grant of relief rest with the Assistant Controller. 5. The Tribunal highlighted that s. 31 mandates the calculation of relief in accordance with the specified scale based on the time between the deaths. The relief percentages are predetermined, leaving no room for discretion in determining the relief amount. Therefore, the Assistant Controller is responsible for calculating and granting relief once the Board confirms the eligibility for quick succession relief. 6. Referring to a decision of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of s. 31, requiring the Assistant Controller to apply the relief provisions at the time of raising the demand for estate duty. The judgment underscored that the Assistant Controller must reduce the estate duty payable in line with s. 31's provisions. 7. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CED (A) to grant relief of Rs. 21,682, as calculated based on the property passing twice in quick succession. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Assistant Controller's obligation to adhere to the relief provisions outlined in s. 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
|
