9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 60,000 could not be brought to tax under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as the Revenue had failed to discharge the onus of satisfying the second condition of the said sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er held that they were deemed to have passed, on the donor's death, under section 10 of the Act. The accountable person, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller Confirming the view taken by the Assistant Controller, the Appellate Controller dismissed the appeal. The account able person, therefore, preferred a second appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that there was no mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve-stated question of law to this court. But it appears that the application made by the Commissioner was rejected. Thereupon, the Commissioner approached this court and, pursuant to the order passed by this court on August 21, 1978, this reference has been made, The Supreme Court in George Da Costa v. CED [1967] 63 ITR 497 and CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder [1973] 88 ITR 448, has held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within a few days of the respective gifts with the firm in which the deceased was a partner, nothing else was established which would indicate that in his character as donor the deceased was not excluded from the benefit of the amounts gifted and that would not be sufficient to attract section 10. The reason is obvious. Possession, enjoyment and exclusion contemplated by section 10 must be in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the donees did not have other amounts. It could have thereafter proved that the amounts which were gifted were re-deposited with the donor. No such attempt was made in this case. As the Department failed to establish the identity of the amounts deposited by the donees with the donor, the Tribunal was right in holding that section 10 did not apply to the facts of this case. In the result, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
