9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of marriage expenses for three unmarried daughters from the principal value of the estate of the deceased. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Marriage Expenses for Three Unmarried Daughters from the Principal Value of the Estate of the Deceased: The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the marriage expenses of the deceased's three unmarried daughters can be deducted from the principal value of the estate. The accountable person, Smt. P. Narasaraju, claimed a deduction of Rs. 30,000 for this purpose, which was denied by the Assistant Controller and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Controller. The accountable person argued that the marriage expenses should be considered as a deductible charge on the property, citing that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and ancient Hindu law support such deductions. The contention was that the daughters, besides their share in the father's interest in the joint family property, are entitled to provisions for maintenance and marriage expenses. The Tribunal examined several precedents and legal provisions to address this issue: - Madras High Court in Karuppana Gounder v. Chinna Nachammal (AIR 1974 Mad. 329): The court held that maintenance, including marriage expenses, should be claimed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and not under the textual Hindu Law. - Special Bench of the Madras Tribunal in Smt. K.S. Jayam v. ACED (1983) 3 ITD 804: The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision in Karuppana Gounder, stating that there is no justification for provisions regarding maintenance and marriage expenses before computing the property available for partition. - Supreme Court in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (AIR 1978 SC 1239): The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of ascertaining the deceased's share in the coparcenary property by assuming a notional partition immediately before his death. - Supreme Court in CED v. Alladi Kuppuswamy (1977) 108 ITR 439: The Court held that a Hindu widow possesses a coparcenary interest and her interest in the joint family property passes on her death, making it liable for estate duty. - Madras High Court in CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma (1984) 148 ITR 434: The Court recognized the right of an unmarried daughter to claim marriage expenses from the ancestral property, stating that such expenses are enforceable against the family property and should be deducted as a debt or encumbrance under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. - Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla and N.R. Raghavachariar: Both texts affirm the liability of joint family property for marriage expenses of daughters, emphasizing that such expenses are a family obligation and can be claimed from the joint family property. The Tribunal concluded that the accountable person's claim for the deduction of Rs. 30,000 for marriage expenses is justified. It directed the Assistant Controller to deduct this amount from the value of the family assets, computing the deceased's share accordingly. This decision aligns with the legal principle that the liability of ancestral or coparcenary property to pay for marriage expenses of unmarried daughters is a proper debt or encumbrance deductible under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The appeal was thus partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the Assistant Controller to apply the principles set out and deduct the claimed amount from the family assets' value.
|
