9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question referred in R.C. No. 268 of 1982 is: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the addition of the deceased's 3/18ths share of Rs. 64,414 in the bad debts reserve account of Rs. 3,86,497 of the firm as passing on the death of the deceased ?" The matter arises under the Estate Duty Act. Two persons, namely, Akula Ramulu and Chandraiah, were partners in a firm, M/s. Sri Ram and Co. The share of Ramulu was 3/18ths while the share of Chandraiah was 1/10tb. While Ramulu died on August 4, 1976, Chandraiah died on February 12, 1977. When the question of valuing the estate on their respective deaths arose in the estate duty proceedings, the Assistant Controller included the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions urged before and dealt with by the Appellate Controller.) The matter was carried in further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the only contention urged on this aspect was that inasmuch as the said bad debt reserve was actually carried forward in the books, notwithstanding the death of the deceased partner, no share of the deceased could be said to have passed on his death. The Tribunal rejected this contention on the following reasoning : Clause 10 of the partnership deed says that the partnership will not be dissolved on the death of a partner. (Of course, the partnership deed contemplated that on the death of the deceased, his heirs or successors will be brought in as partners in his place and as a mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade up, no share Of bad debt reserve can be included in assessing the value of the estate of the deceased. This was rejected by the Tribunal. It was not argued before the Tribunal that the correct method of valuing the estate was not followed or that in that view, the orders of the authorities below should be set aside. Before us, Mr. Ranganatham sought to contend that the proper method as pointed out by the Appellate Controller ought to have been followed and for that purpose the matter should be remitted to the authorities below. We are, however, not inclined to agree with this contention inasmuch as this contention was never urged before the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the said contention arises from the order of the Tribunal. Above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
