9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that, in rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, notices have to be served on all the legal representatives and that service of notice on only one of the legal representatives is invalid ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the question whether Haribux Poddar had only 50% interest in the Hindu undivided family property which passed on his death or he had full interest in the property and the entire property passed on the death of Haribux Poddar was a debatable issue and was not a mistake apparent from the record which co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a mistake apparent on the face of the record. In that view of the matter, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty recomputed the principal value of the estate of the deceased and a notice of demand was consequently served on Smt. Rampyari Devi. She preferred an appeal before the Appellate Controller which was partly allowed. The Appellate Controller overruled the objection that the appeal before the Appellate Controller was not competent but he held that though there were four legal representatives for the accountable person, notice was served on only one of them, and hence, the order of rectification was liable to be set aside. The Appellate. Controller directed the Assistant Controller to issue notices to all the legal representatives a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Act, 1922. The provisions of clause (b) of section 62(1) of the Act are very widely worded and in view of those provisions, it must be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed by the Assistant Controller under section 61 was appealable under section 62 of the Estate Duty Act. It was then contended on behalf of the Revenue that even though notices were not served on the other three legal representatives, the Tribunal should have affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Controller directing the Assistant Controller to serve notices on the other three legal representatives also, so that a fresh order of rectification could be passed. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the following observations of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on only one of the legal representatives, the proceedings for rectification were not validly initiated and the order of rectification, therefore, was void. It was then contended that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and the provisions of section 61 of the Act were not attracted. The contention cannot be upheld. The Supreme Court has held in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake. In the instant case, the question as to what property passed on the death of Haribux Poddar was, as pointed out by the Tribunal, a debatable issue. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
