9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Inclusion of insurance money received by the nominee in the estate of the deceased for estate duty assessment. 2. Rectification of the Tribunal's order based on the Supreme Court judgment. Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of insurance money in the estate for estate duty assessment The case involved the deceased's estate duty assessment, where the accountable person, the deceased's father, received insurance money from a policy after the deceased's death. The Assistant Controller initially held that the amount was includible in the estate of the deceased based on relevant sections of the Estate Duty Act. However, the Appellate Controller and the Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court, stating that the money received by the nominee after the deceased's death did not cease to be part of the deceased's estate. The Tribunal held that the nominee could not be treated as the owner of the money, and sections 6 and 15 of the Estate Duty Act were applicable. Issue 2: Rectification of the Tribunal's order based on the Supreme Court judgment Following the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the accountable person filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court had ruled that the insurance money received by the nominee was not includible in the estate of the deceased for estate duty assessment. The accountable person's counsel argued that the decision of the Supreme Court was binding on all courts, and the Tribunal's reliance on the Madras High Court decision, which was later reversed, constituted a legal mistake. The counsel further cited various legal precedents to support the argument that the Tribunal's order should be rectified under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties, concluded that the insurance money received by the nominee should not be included in the estate of the deceased for estate duty assessment. The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's observation regarding the insurance money was not the ratio or an obiter dicta of the decision but a casual remark. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, ruling in favor of the accountable person. In summary, the Tribunal's decision in this case was based on the Supreme Court's ruling that the insurance money received by the nominee was not part of the deceased's estate for estate duty assessment. The Tribunal rectified its earlier order, following the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision in a similar matter.
|
