9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1969 (2) TMI 19 - HC - Income TaxEstate Duty Act, 1953 - value of the estate - interpretation of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) read with section 9 as also section 27
Issues:
Interpretation of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) read with section 9 and section 27 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Analysis: The case involved the interpretation of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in relation to the inclusion of certain loans in the deceased's estate. The deceased had given loans to his niece and niece-in-law, which became time-barred before his death. The Deputy Controller included these loans as part of the estate, considering them as gifts due to the deceased's inaction in recovering them. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the deceased treated the loans as subsisting and did not intend to gift them, as evidenced by his wealth statements. The main question was whether the loans should be included in the estate value. The Tribunal concluded that the loans were not includible in the principal value of the estate, based on the scope of Explanation 2 to section 2(15. The court analyzed the elements of Explanation 2, emphasizing that it deems the extinguishment of a debt or right by the deceased as a disposition in favor of another person. The court discussed the scope of the Explanation, noting that it includes only extinguishments made by the deceased consciously, positively, or negatively. Passive inaction, such as lapse of time, must be a result of the deceased's conscious act to fall within the Explanation. The court referred to legal commentary to support its interpretation, emphasizing that the Explanation deems the extinguished debt or right as property only when the deceased consciously acts to extinguish it. Ultimately, the court answered the question against the revenue, holding that the loans were not includible in the estate value. The court found that the deceased did not consciously allow the loans to become time-barred, and therefore, the Explanation did not apply to deem the loans as gifts. The judgment clarified the application of Explanation 2 and highlighted the requirement of conscious action by the deceased for an extinguishment to be considered a disposition.
|
