9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he month of April, 1970, and thereafter since August, 1970, stopped paying further instalments. By a letter dated December 5, 1970, the estate duty authority called upon the accountable person to appear on December 22, 1970, to discuss the matter and subsequently a notice dated December 30, 1970, was issued against the accountable person directing him to explain in writing by January 16, 1971, why the scheme of instalment as granted should not be treated as cancelled for default and why penalty should not be imposed for non-payment of the duty. The accountable person did not comply either with the said letter dated December 5, 1970, or the said notice dated December 30, 1970. No further payment was made by the accountable person. By an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record. The Appellate Controller accepted the contentions of the accountable person and held that the default of the accountable person in not making the payment in terms of the instalment scheme was purely a technical defect as the Assistant Controller had not dealt with the contentions of the accountable person as recorded in his letter dated January 16, 1971. The Appellate Controller, therefore, reduced the penalty to a token sum of Rs. 500 and remitted the balance penalty of Rs. 9,500. Being aggrieved, the Assistant Controller preferred an appeal against the order of the Appellate Controller before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It was contended in the appeal on behalf of the estate duty authorities that the Appellate Contro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellate Controller should be held to be competent. The Tribunal also held on merits that the order of the Appellate Controller was correct. The appeal of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was dismissed. On an application of the Revenue under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal has referred the following question as question of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and section 62(1)(a)(iv) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the Assistant Controller under section 73(5) of the Estate Duty Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed estate duty had been kept in abeyance on condition that, the accountable person paid only two payments of Rs. 10,000 by the first week of June 1971, and Rs. 50,000 by January 1972, it followed that the requirement of the proviso to section 62(1)(a)(iv) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not attracted as the entire amount of duty as assessed was not required to be paid before the appeal was filed or, in any event, before the appeal came to be disposed of by the Appellate Controller. In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the accountable person relied on the following decisions : (a) CED v. Estate of late M. Kuppuswami Naicker [1977] 110 ITR 127 (Mad). In this case, for non-payment of estate duty within the time allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty imposing a penalty was dismissed by the Appellate Controller on the ground that the duty had not been paid by the accountable person at the time of the filing of the appeal and the appeal was incompetent. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the appeal was competent inasmuch as when the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Appellate Controller, the Assistant Controller had allowed time to the accountable person for payment of duty. On a reference, the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Madras High Court which held that the proviso to section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, had been satisfied as the demand for payment of duty had been modified. Following its earlier decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25, 1971, had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the accountable person. The Tribunal did not have any occasion to consider the effect of the said two orders directing stay of recovery of the duty assessed. It remains to be ascertained whether at the relevant time when the Appellate Controller took up the hearing of the appeal, the accountable person had complied with the directions of the Tribunal contained in the said orders and also whether the amount of duty could be said to have become due and had remained unpaid at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing. On ascertainment of the aforesaid, it would be open to the accountable person to take advantage of the said two decisions of the Madras High Court noted here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
