9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute over levy of penalties under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 for non-deposit of provisional tax demand. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the dispute regarding the levy of penalties under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 for non-deposit of a provisional tax demand. The accountable person, in this case, was required to deposit a provisional demand of Rs. 37,102, which he requested to recover from two life insurance policies of the deceased. The Assistant Controller, however, only admitted a liability of Rs. 2,446 and subsequently levied penalties of Rs. 3,400 and Rs. 5,000. The Appellate Controller dismissed the appeals challenging these penalties on the basis that only a partial payment of the estate duty amount was made by the accountable person, rendering the appeals non-maintainable. The accountable person, through their counsel, relied on various case laws to contest the Appellate Controller's decision. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, supported the lower authorities' orders and cited different cases to justify the penalties imposed. However, the Tribunal found certain uncontroverted facts in the case, including the provisional demand amount, the policies held by the deceased, and the amounts collected by the Assistant Controller from the LIC. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and case laws cited, concluded that the Appellate Controller was not justified in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable. They highlighted the need for condonation of delay based on previous judgments where stay orders or time extensions were granted. The Tribunal emphasized that a significant portion of the amount had already reached the Government treasury before the appeals were dismissed. They criticized the imposition of consecutive penalties on the accountable person, especially considering the progress of recovery from the LIC was not adequately communicated to them. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Appellate Controller's decision and directed a fresh adjudication on the merits of the case, instructing a full opportunity for the accountable person to present their case. The appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a favorable outcome for the accountable person in terms of challenging the penalties imposed.
|
