9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nswer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative then: 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by Shyamal Bikash Sett before the Appellate Controller without its being accompanied by certified copy of the assessment order or the demand notice, was proper ? " One Sushil Kumar Sett died on September 20, 1964. An assessment under the Estate Duty Act was made on March 31, 1969. This was pursuant to a statement of account of the estate filed by one Swarup Bikash Sett, the eldest son of the deceased. Shyamal Bikash Sett, the youngest son of Sushil and a step-brother of Swarup, filed an application before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on September 3, 1969, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to be deemed as an accountable person under section 53 of the Act and as such Shyamal was also entitled to impugn the assessment. The Tribunal, however, did not think it necessary to decide the question as to whether the assessment was proper and legal, since it would be a matter to be decided in all finality by the Appellate Controller, once the appeal was held to be competent. The further contention of the Revenue was that even if an appeal of Shyamal was entertainable, as one filed by a competent person, still the appeal was not properly filed before the Appellate Controller. The Tribunal found it evident from the letter dated October 13, 1969, that Shyamal Bikash Sett had not been furnished with the assessment order or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been conferred with a right of appeal against the order of the Controller. Thus, Shyamal is an accountable person under section 53 of the Act and having an interest in the estate has right to prefer an appeal against the assessment. The fact that his elder brother, also an accountable person, filed the return when Shyamal was a minor would not take away such right. Under the general law, whether a person is a party to a proceeding or not, he would have a right to prefer an appeal against a judgment or order which prejudicially or adversely affects him. We are thus of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is correct and lawful and calls for no interference from us. For the above reasons, question No. 1 is thus answered in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
