Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1984 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1984 (12) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Affording opportunity to prove liabilities of the deceased
2. Applicability of rule 1BB of the WT Rules in valuing the house property left by the deceased

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolved around whether the lower authorities provided an opportunity to prove the liabilities of the deceased. The deceased, an old man with limited income and suffering from various ailments, left behind a house as his only asset. The accountable person submitted a letter detailing loans borrowed and requested deduction of these borrowings from the estate value. However, the Asst. Controller did not consider this information adequately and did not provide an opportunity to substantiate the claimed debts. In the appeal, it was argued that insufficient time was given to produce evidence, hindering the presentation of a case. The Appellate Controller acknowledged the fresh evidence presented and directed a reevaluation by the Asst. Controller, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the debt claims. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Asst. CED should reassess the genuineness of the debt claims, allowing the accountable person to provide further evidence if necessary.

2. The second issue pertained to the applicability of s. 36(3) of the ED Act, inserted with retrospective effect from 1st March, 1981. The provision outlined the valuation method for residential properties of the deceased. The accountable person argued for its retrospective application to all pending matters, regardless of the timeline. Citing legal precedents emphasizing the retrospective nature of procedural statutes unless specified otherwise, the Tribunal agreed with the accountable person's stance. Relying on the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that s. 36(3) being procedural should apply to all pending cases, including those predating the amendment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on this interpretation, affirming the retrospective application of s. 36(3) and its relevance to the valuation of the deceased's property.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates