9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire estate passed on the death of the deceased, he being the sole surviving coparcener of the Hindu undivided family at the time of his death ?" The relevant facts are the following. The deceased Dr. S. N. Bhargava, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o his heirs. All the three authorities have held that since Dr. Bhargava was the sole surviving coparcener, his interest was total and that the entire estate (Hindu undivided family properties) passed to his heirs. This was so held following the decision of this court in CED v. Kalawati Devi [1980] 125 ITR 762. It is thereupon that the accountable person applied for and obtained this reference. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest passed to her heirs. The said decision, in our opinion, has no relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present case. This is not a case where the death of Dr. Bhargava took place at a time when the 1937 Act was in force. The simple question in this case is whether, on the date of death of Dr. Bhargava, his wife had Any share in the Hindu undivided family property. The answer can only be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
