9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to lineal descendants' share for rate purposes amounting to Rs. 1,78,453. In view of this, the Asstt. Controller held that estate duty should be computed on the value of the estate of Rs. 49,539 at the rates applicable to Rs. 2,72,812. Against this order, it was contended before the CIT(A) that no duty could be levied on the accountable person as the value of the estate was less that Rs. 50,000 as has been held by the Kerala High Court in T.R. Jaiyasankar vs. Asstt. CED (1972) 83 ITR 445 (Ker). During the pendency of this appeal before the CIT (A), the Asstt. Controller passed another order under s. 61 of the Act rectifying his earlier order for the purpose of correcting certain mistakes relating to the deceased's share in the residential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Presently, the Revenue has come up in appeal against this order of the CIT(A) holding that the Asstt. Controller's computation of the valuation of estate by his order dt. 26th June, 1978 was correct. In this connection, the original ground raised before us was that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing exemption of the entire value of the residential house held by the HUF. In the course of the hearing before us, Sri Santhanam, the ld. Deptl. Rep. sought our permission to raise a fresh ground contending that the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the full value of the residential house and furniture under s. 33(1)(n) of the Act without noticing that the Asstt. Controller had passed an order under s. 61 of the ED Act. Since the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f on this account cannot be sought in the proceedings under s. 61 of the Act. 6. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accountable person, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the Asstt. Controller could not have passed the order dt.26th June, 1978 on account of the fact that there are contrary decisions on this issue as has been pointed out by the ld. Deptl. Rep. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the method of computation as adopted by the Asstt. Controller by his order dt. 26th June, 1978. 7. After hearing the rival submissions, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT (A) inasmuch as we find that he was justified in holding that the Asstt. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
