Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1969 (4) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... New Delhi : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material for the finding of the Board that the ownership of the properties and shares standing in the name of Shri Nandlal Goenka passed on the death of the deceased ? (2) Whether, while disposing of an appeal under the provisions of section 63 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at it stood before the amendment in 1958, the Board had the power to enhance the value of one of the properties where the net effect of the Board's order was a reduction in the value of all the properties taken together. " The facts arising out of this reference are as follows : The estate duty assessment pertains to the estate of late Shri Gordhan Das Goenka, who died on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s individual capacity and not to the joint family, of which the deceased was the karta. These properties were acquired in the name of the accountable person, namely, Nandlal in the year 1946, when he was a minor. This contention was also negatived by the Board on the footing that the source of these investments was the undisclosed income of the joint family and not any outside source as claimed by the family. In the circumstances, the Board did not find any merit in the contention, that the properties standing in the name of Nandlal were his own individual acquisitions. This finding was based on a judgment of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in an income-tax matter. Question No. 1 On the above findings, we have to decide the point o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ould not have overlooked the fact that appeal was already preferred against the said assessment denying liability in respect thereof. " This ground clearly shows that the impugned judgment of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on which the Board and the Estate Duty officer relied upon could not have been treated as a final judgment and as such, implicit reliance thereon was uncalled for. Further, it appears that the Board did not discuss the merits of the ground stated before and as such it cannot be said that the judgment of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be treated as a very strong material to negative the contention of Nandlal. In this reference, a judgment of the Tribunal has been filed in which it appears that the ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... luation report from the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, the valuation of this property was estimated to be Rs. 32,000. In spite of it, the valuation of the property was taken by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty at Rs. 6,500, but after hearing the arguments, of the learned advocates, the estimated valuation of this property was raised by the Board to Rs. 18,500 as against Rs. 6,500, previously assessed in the assessment. Undoubtedly, as appearing from the statement of the case, there was a total reduction of valuation of the properties, but the question which requires our consideration is whether under the appropriate provisions of the Estate Duty Act, it was justifiable on the part of the Board to increase the valuation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lal. Accordingly, in our opinion, it is not open to the Board to raise any ground which would work adversely to the assessee and which makes his position in so far as Ratannagar property is concerned worse than what it was in the order appealed against. This matter might have been gone into by the Board if tile department had appealed against the valuation of a particular property which came under the operation of the Estate Duty Act. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the Board in this regard proceeded in accordance with law. Accordingly, this question No. 2 is answered in favour of the assessee, Nandlal, and in the negative. The assessee will get costs, hearing fee being assessed at Rs. 100. S. K. DUTTA C.J. - I agr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates