9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the amount received by the accountable person from the relief fund constitutes property passing under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. Whether the deceased had the right to nominate the beneficiary and if the property was in existence at the time of death. 3. Whether the payment from the relief fund was compulsory and whether there was a direct nexus between the deceased's right as a member of the bank and the accountable person's right to receive the payment. 4. Whether the amount collected and paid from the relief fund constitutes passing of property under section 6 or any deeming provision under the Act. 5. Whether section 34(3) of the Act applies to treat the amount as a separate estate and not to be aggregated with other assets of the deceased. Detailed Analysis: 1. The dispute revolved around the amount of Rs. 10,000 received by the accountable person from the relief fund of the Co-operative Bank, which was collected from members upon the death of a member. The Assistant Controller contended that this amount constituted property passing under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, as the deceased had the right to nominate the beneficiary. However, the first appellate authority disagreed, stating that the property was not in existence at the time of death, and hence did not pass on. The authority also cited a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court supporting the accountable person's case, leading to the deletion of the addition. 2. The departmental appeal argued that the payment was not gratuitous and was compulsory, with no pre-conditions for the accountable person to satisfy. It was claimed that there was a direct connection between the deceased's membership in the bank and the accountable person's right to receive the payment. The department sought to distinguish the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, emphasizing the alleged non-discretionary nature of the payment. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the resolution of the Co-operative Bank, which indicated that the fund for the payment to nominees was created after the death of a member through deductions from other members. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority that the property was not in existence at the time of death, and therefore, no passing of property under section 6 occurred. It was also noted that the amount collected and paid did not fall under any deeming provision of the Act. 4. The Tribunal further discussed the application of section 34(3) of the Act, which would treat the amount as a separate estate not to be aggregated with the deceased's other assets. It was concluded that the amount of Rs. 10,000, regardless of its source, did not constitute an asset in which the deceased had an interest. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, dismissing the departmental appeal.
|
