9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... schief of section 27 read with section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, so as to justify the inclusion of the said property in the net principal value of the deceased for purposes of the estate duty assessment?" The background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows: A proceeding under the Act was initiated on the basis of a statement of estate delivered by Satyajit (hereinafter referred to as "accountable person") on April 10, 1975, in respect of the late Shri Durga Dass (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), who breathed his last on May 17, 1974. During the assessment proceedings the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (hereinafter referred to as "the Assistant Controller") was of the view that a property, which was thrown into t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 ITR 92 and CED v. N. Shankaran [1992] 193 ITR 28. It was his stand that the expression "disposition" has a wide ambit and the factual position as indicated brooks within its scope, throwing of the self-acquired property into the common hotchpot by blending as well as partition subsequently. So far as the question of disposition is concerned, it is to be noted that in N. Shankaran's case [1992] 193 ITR 28, the apex court held that the act of a member of a Hindu undivided family by which he impresses his individual property with the character of joint family property or throws it into the hotchpot of the joint family or blends it with the joint family property is not a disposition within the meaning of the Act and will not attract estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred in these cases. We would, however, like to advert to another aspect which may arise for consideration at some future date. It may, perhaps, be possible to contend that, though a declaration of blending does not amount to a 'gift', where the act of blending is followed by a subsequent partition, the two transactions taken together do result in the extinguishment, at the expense of the deceased, of his rights in the properties which go to the share of other coparceners at the subsequent partition and that, if the two can be treated as parts of the same transaction, Explanation 2 to section 2(15) may be attracted. But this, apart from being a totally new question of law not raised at any stage and not debated before us, would also req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
