9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari in C. I. R. No. 1025. The facts are : one Ramaswamy, son of the deceased, Rangammal Krishnamachari, died intestate on October 18, 1969. On his death, all his properties devolved on Mrs. Rangammal Krishnamachari as the sole heir of V. K. Ramaswami. V. K. Ramaswami's properties were subjected to estate duty by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, in his assessment order dated May 31, 1972 in G. 1. R. No. 703. The properties subjected to estate duty comprised, apart from the other properties, immovable properties, viz., a house at Lloyds Road and a vacant site at Mowbrays Road, Madras-18. The vacant site was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 and the estate duty of V. K. Ramaswami was partly paid out of the sale proceeds. The ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein. The question for our consideration in this case is whether the respondents have levied proper estate duty under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act on the passing away of Mrs. Rangammal Krishnamachari. To be more precise, the question is whether the concession contemplated under section 31 of the Act is available to the investments, representing the sale proceeds of the immovable property, made in banks or otherwise. According to the Revenue, the concession contemplated under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act will be available only when the identity of the property is maintained. In other words, the identical property to which a person succeeded must be available at the time of the death of such person within five years from the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten by the accountable person, the second respondent on August 1, 1978, revised the original order of assessment and re-determined the principal value at Rs. 9,85,386 and in the revised order of assessment, he granted the quick succession relief. But, he restricted the relief to a sum of Rs. 3,879 as against Rs. 23,884 claimed by the accountable person. The second respondent in restricting the relief has acted on the order of the first respondent who is the authority to grant relief. Now, it is to be seen whether the accountable person is entitled to the quick succession relief as claimed in its entirety. However, in the orders passed by both the respondents, there was no reasoning given in the matter of restricting the relief as asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on the first death, on assumptions which are drawn generously in favour of the tax payer. Learned counsel also placed reliance on P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, at page 1151, wherein it was stated as under : " `same' does not always mean identical. It frequently means of the kind or species, not the specific thing." "As ordinarily understood, the word 'same', when used in comparison, means of like kind, species, sort, dimensions, or the like, not differing in character, or in the quality or quantities compared, corresponding not discordant, similar, like." Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of the Punjab High Court in the case of Deva Sharma v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1956 Punj 49 at 54, wherein it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property, which was subjected to estate duty earlier, the relief can be granted. We have heard both the parties. It remains to be seen whether the accountable person is entitled to the quick succession relief as contemplated under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act. As we have already pointed out, section 31 of the Estate Duty Act enables the accountable person to get quick succession relief under circumstances mentioned therein. In this context, the meaning of the words occurring in section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, viz., "same property" assumes importance. According to the various authorities cited supra, we have seen that the "same property" does not mean the identical property. The property can be either in the form of movable or imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d two immovable properties. Where the sale proceeds are clearly identified as arising out of the sale of the said immovable property, the relief as contemplated under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act cannot be denied in view of the meaning to be given to the term "property" as per section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act and other authorities cited supra. In view of the above said finding that the term "property" includes both movable or immovable and the sale proceeds thereof, we consider that the respondents are not correct in restricting the relief as claimed by the accountable person under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. In such circumstances, we direct the respondents to grant the relief of quick succession in entirety towards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
