9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hindu undivided family property. Since the original order of assessment accordingly accepted that the wife had half a share and that only the deceased's half share passed on his death, it cannot be said that the case called for any reassessment – reopening of assessment is not justified - - - - - Dated:- 4-2-2004 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., A. M. KAPADIA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M.S. Shah J.- In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion:- "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the reopening was not justified in the present case since the High Court decision relied on by the Assistant Controlle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a Tribunal in another State. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. We have heard Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-accountable person. Mr. Desai has vehemently submitted that the real controversy is whether reopening of the assessment was justified and not whether reopening was not justified because the jurisdiction of another High Court or the Tribunal was overlooked, which was only one of the arguments. In view of the above submission, we have reframed the question as under:- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the reopening was not justified in the present case?" Mr. Desai has further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether she was entitled to demand a partition, we are not sure. In such a situation, if the order of assessment accepted that she had half a share and that only the deceased's half interest passed on his death, it cannot be said that the order suffers from an error apparent from the record which is amenable to rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. At best, it was a debatable question. On this ground alone and without expressing any opinion on the facts of the case, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Controller dated September 8, 1977." In our view, the facts in the present case are similar. The reference relates to the estate of a person who died in the year 1972. The Estate Duty Act has since b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
