9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the court was delivered by T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. -- This is an application filed under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to compel reference of certain questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. H. H. Sethu Parvati Bai died on August 4, 1983. In the order of assessment, the Assistant Controller included as part of her estate, the amount arising by way of refund cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Controller pursuant to the remand had been passed, in which he had held that the refund had become due only after the death, the appellate orders being passed subsequent to that date. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the amount of refund had not accrued to the deceased at or before the death, and it was not property passing on death. The amount was consequently deleted from the assessment. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a person could not be considered as property available at the time of the deceased's death. It could not therefore be considered as property passing on his death and it should not be assessed as part of his estate, For reaching this conclusion, the Allahabad High Court drew support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Muthiah (M. Ct.) v. CED [1986] 161 ITR 768. A similar view was taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was dependent on such an uncertain contingency, it could not for a moment be said that there was any tangible property available to the deceased on the date of her death, which could pass on death. The right accrued only when the appellate orders were passed and not earlier. The amount of refund was not, therefore, property passing on the death of H. H. Sethu Parvathi Bai and, therefore, not li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
