9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that while ascertaining the deceased's share of interest in (i) Farm Tea Estates Syndicate, and (ii) Corsley Estates, the sum of Rs. 1,44,164 being the provision for gratuity should be allowed as a liability and, consequently, the share of the deceased should be diminished by a proportionate amount ? " By the accountable person : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the accountable person was not entitled to claim in computing the value of the estate of the deceased the estate duty payable as a liability ? " One, Shri G. T. Pandiaraj, died on July 26, 1971, leaving an estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erson. In so far as question referred to us at the instance of the Department is concerned it relates to gratuity liability. At the time of hearing before the appellate authority, the accountable person pointed out that the gratuity liability to the tune of Rs. 1,44,164 should be allowed as a deduction. The Estate Duty Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. CWT [1967] 63 ITR 470 and Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CWT [1974] 93 ITR 603. On appeal before the Appellate Controller, relying upon an earlier order of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that gratuity liability should be allowed as a deduction from the total principal value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellate authority could have easily verified the same, if there is any doubt in his mind with regard to the working of the gratuity liability. This was not done. Therefore, it would lead to a conclusion that the working sheet furnished by the assessee contained the correct ascertainment of the gratuity liability on scientific and actuarial method. Hence, we do not find that there is any need or necessity for again requesting the Appellate Controller to verify the same. In the decision in CWT v. S. Ram [1984] 147 ITR 278, a Division Bench of this court has held that in ascertaining the partner's interest in a firm under the break-up value method, as provided in the Wealth-tax Rules, provisions for gratuity based on actuarial valuation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
