1986 (2) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement of Shyamal Bikash Sett to prefer an appeal under section 62 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
2. Validity of the appeal filed by Shyamal Bikash Sett without a certified copy of the assessment order or demand notice.

Analysis:
The case involves a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, initiated by the Revenue. The first issue pertains to whether Shyamal Bikash Sett was entitled to prefer an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order before the Appellate Controller under section 62 of the Act. The Tribunal held that Shyamal, as a son of the deceased, was deemed an accountable person under section 53 of the Act and therefore entitled to challenge the assessment. The Tribunal also found that denying Shyamal the assessment order and demand notice would impede his right to appeal. The Appellate Controller's dismissal was deemed improper, and the Tribunal directed a reconsideration on merits. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing Shyamal's right to appeal as an accountable person with an interest in the estate. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling in favor of Shyamal against the Revenue on both issues.

The second issue concerns the validity of Shyamal's appeal filed without the necessary certified documents. The Revenue argued that Shyamal, not being the one who filed the return, was excluded from the appeal process. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing section 53(1)(a) of the Act, which deems every legal representative accountable for estate duty. Shyamal, being a son of the deceased, was considered an accountable person under Hindu law. The Court highlighted that any person with an interest in the estate has the right to appeal under section 62 of the Act. Therefore, Shyamal's appeal, even without the certified documents, was deemed valid. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering both questions in favor of Shyamal and against the Revenue. The judgment concluded without any order as to costs, with both judges concurring with the decision.