9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accountable person of the deceased is one Pavayammal. The accountable person filed the accounts of the estate originally on July 24, 1975. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty completed the assessment on February 20, 1976, determining the principal value of the estate at Rs. 1,48,238. In January, 1981, the accountable person, long after the completion of the assessment, filed a revised account of the estate admitting an enhanced value of the estate at Rs. 1,59,773. The accountable person showed a sum of Rs. 92,698 in the revised statement as the amount due to the legal heirs of the deceased under the terms of the group insurance scheme and claimed the same as exempt, relying on the decision of this court in the case of CED v. Estate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would apply only to rectification of mistakes and no notice under section 61 was issued by the Assistant Controller. The Tribunal, therefore, held that neither the provisions of section 59 nor the provisions of section 61 were applicable and the reassessment made was held to be not valid. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the question of law set out above has been referred for our opinion. We are of the opinion, the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion. Section 73A of the Estate Duty Act provides for limitation for commencing proceedings for assessment or reassessment. Section 73A of the Estate Duty Act reads as under : "No proceedings for the levy of any estate duty under this Act shall be commen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the accountable person filed the revised accounts to get necessary certificate to pursue the matter to obtain succession certificate and in view of the clear language of section 73A(b) of the Estate Duty Act, that will not grant a fresh lease of time to initiate reassessment proceedings after the expiry of three years from the original assessment. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has come to the correct conclusion in holding that the reassessment made on February 12, 1981, was clearly barred by time. That apart, the initiation of reassessment proceedings commenced in January, 1981, after filing of another account, and if the period of initiation of reassessment is taken into account, it is barred by section 73A(b) of the Act. In so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
