9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ". The trust is petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 has been named in the will as sole executor and to manage the property of the deceased as well as the income of the trust. Petitioner No. 1 filed an estate duty return under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (Act No. 34 of 1953) (hereinafter to be called as "the Act"), and the respondent on March 28, 1959, framed an estimate on the total estate amounting to Rs. 3,26,642 after giving credit for a sum of Rs. 3,750 for succession certificate fees and Rs. 20,382.24 on account of provisional demand under section 57(2) and a demand for Rs. 1,114.05 was created. Petitioner No. 1, in the meanwhile, had filed a petition under sections 222 and 276 read with section 300 of the Indian Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief from estate duty for the amount of court-fees already paid by him, even if the petitioner had paid court-fees subsequently, there was no provision in the Act for giving relief to the petitioner and the powers contained in section 61 of the Act were not required to be exercised as there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Section 50 of the Act provides for relief from estate duty where court-fees have been paid for obtaining refund to the estate of the deceased and it says as under : "Where any fees have been paid under any law relating to court-fees in force in any State for obtaining probate, letters o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterior or posterior to the date when the estate duty assessment is finalised. It has further been urged that the claim for this relief based on the actual fact of payment of probate duty cannot be treated as a rectification of a mistake under section 61 of the Act and merely because there is no prescribed procedure in the Act or the rules for grant of certain relief, courts should not be so insensitive as not to give such relief if the justice of the case so requires and if the purpose of the statutory provisions has to be achieved and advanced. After having gone through both the decisions, we are, with respect, unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the view taken in Bhubaneswar Sarkar's case [1965] 57 ITR (Sh. N. 31); [1965] 58 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid for obtaining probate-Clarification regarding. The Madras High Court have, in the case of G. D. Narendra v. Controller of Estate Duty [1972] 85 ITR 647, held that relief under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in respect of court-fees paid, cannot be denied solely on the ground that the limitation under section 61 of the Act for rectification of estate duty assessment has expired. Section 50 casts statutory obligation upon the Controller of Estate Duty to allow such relief and the time-limit specified in section 61 has no application in such cases. 2. The Board have accepted the Madras High Court decision. (Sd.) P. Ranganathan Under Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes . . ." A circular of this kind issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
