9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 34. 2. The facts in this regard are briefly as under : The deceased had taken three policies under the Married Women's Property Act, 1874, the beneficiaries being his sons and wife in respect of each policy. The sums payable under these policies totalled to Rs. 89,230. While holding that the deceased had no interest in these policies and, therefore, the sums payable thereunder have to be treated as a separate, estate under section 34(3), the Assistant Controller, however, aggregated the amounts due under the three policies and subjected the same to duty as a separate unit. 3. On appeal, the Appellate Controller held, that the deceased had no interest in the sums payable under the policies and the amount payable under each polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principal value would exceed the maximum exemption limit. In this connection, a reference to section 34(3) is quite germane to the context. This section is reproduced hereunder : " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), any property passing in which the deceased never had an interest, not being a right or debt or benefit that is treated as property by virtue of the Explanation to clause (15) of section 2, shall not be aggregated with any property, but shall be an estate by itself, and the estate duty shall be levied at the rate or rates applicable in respect of the principal value thereof. " The section lays down that any property in which the deceased had no interest shall not be aggregated with any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the opinion, that the two amounts should be treated as separate estates individually and should not be aggregated not only with the other properties but also inter se. This is because the language of the section clearly states that any property which comes within its provisions shall not be aggregated with 'any property' which obviously includes a property which qualifies under section 34(3). Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that two reasonable interpretations are possible and that the two amounts under consideration should be added together to form a separate estate, we hold that the view which is favourable to the accountable person should be adopted vide the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
