9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Estate duty liability as a debt. 2. Inclusion of lineal descendants' share in the property. 3. Addition of specific items to the principal value of the estate. 4. Exemption of gifts under sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) of the Estate Duty Act. 5. Relinquishment of share and subsequent borrowal. 6. Deduction for marriage expenses of unmarried daughters. 7. Charging of interest under section 70 of the Estate Duty Act. 8. Granting of suitable rebate for shareholding. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Estate Duty Liability as a Debt: The accountable person claimed that estate duty payable on the determined value of the estate is a liability. This claim was rejected by both lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that all High Courts have consistently held that estate duty liability cannot be considered a debt due by the assessee. Reference was made to several decisions, including CED vs. Bipinchandra N Patel & Ors., which stated: "The principal value of the property determined under s. 36 cannot also be reduced by the estate duty liability as debts and encumbrances of the deceased under s. 44 of the Act." Consequently, this ground was rejected. 2. Inclusion of Lineal Descendants' Share: The accountable person objected to the inclusion of the lineal descendants' share in the property held by the major HUF for computing the principal value of the estate. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court decision in V. Davaki Ammal vs. ACED, which questioned the constitutional validity of s. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act. However, since the estate duty payable on the lineal descendants' share was kept in abeyance as per the Supreme Court's interim direction in the appeal against Devaki Ammal's case, the Tribunal held that no grievance could be made by the accountable person. Thus, these grounds were dismissed. 3. Addition of Specific Items to Principal Value: Grounds 1-6 dealt with the addition of specific items such as commission, medical expenses reimbursement, and income-tax refunds to the principal value of the estate. The Tribunal examined the relevant facts and legal precedents, including the Madras High Court decision in T.V. Srinivasan vs. CWT. It concluded that the income-tax refunds were rightly included as part of the estate of the deceased. However, the facts regarding the commission payment and medical expenses reimbursement were not clear, so the matter was remanded to the ACED for further examination. 4. Exemption of Gifts: Grounds 11-13 concerned the exemption of gifts under ss. 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) of the ED Act. The Tribunal held that a gift of Rs. 2,000 to a nephew as a birthday gift did not qualify for exemption under s. 9(2)(a). However, the gift of Rs. 5,000 to the Guruvayur temple was found to be part of the deceased's normal expenditure, as evidenced by continuous contributions for poor feeding. Therefore, this gift was exempt under s. 9(2)(b), and the appeal was allowed in this regard. 5. Relinquishment of Share and Subsequent Borrowal: Grounds 9-10 addressed the issue of relinquishment of the deceased's share in his mother's estate and subsequent borrowal from his sister. The Tribunal found a nexus between the relinquishment and the loan, as established by the Madras High Court Full Bench decision in CED vs. Sileshkumar R Mehta. However, since gift-tax had already been paid on the relinquishment, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the ACED to deduct the gift-tax amount from the estate duty payable as per s. 50A of the ED Act. 6. Deduction for Marriage Expenses: Ground 14 involved the claim for deducting Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage expenses of the deceased's two unmarried daughters. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including CED vs. Dr. B. Kamalamma, and concluded that the provision for marriage expenses could not be considered a legitimate deduction. Additionally, it was found that sufficient provision had already been made for the daughters' marriages through partial partitions. Thus, this ground was dismissed. 7. Charging of Interest: Grounds 20-22 related to the charging of interest under s. 70 of the ED Act. The Tribunal held that while interest charged as part of the provisional demand could not be appealed, it could be contested when included in the regular assessment. The Tribunal found that the ACED had incorrectly calculated the interest based on the face value of shares rather than their market value. The interest rate was reduced to 2.65% for shares in Rane (Madras) Ltd. and 3.65% for shares in Engine Valves Ltd., and the matter was remanded to the ACED to recalculate the interest accordingly. 8. Granting of Suitable Rebate: Ground 7 concerned the request for a rebate due to the large shareholding of the deceased. The Tribunal found no substantiated argument or departmental instruction to support this claim and dismissed the ground. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with specific issues remanded to the ACED for further examination and recalculations. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of certain items in the estate, rejected the claim for marriage expenses deduction, and adjusted the interest rate charged under s. 70 of the ED Act.
|
