1983 (10) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal for the opinion of this court. The accountable person filed his return as regards the estate of late K. S. Subbanna Gounder showing the value of the deceased's share in the firm of M/s. Madras Wire Products as Rs. 1,29,625. The accountable person is the son of the deceased. Along with the return the accountable person has also sent a balance-sheet of the said firm showing the value of the deceased's share at Rs. 3,79,336. To the balance-sheet the accountable person has appended a note explaining the reason for returning a value of Rs. 1,29,625 as against the balance-sheet value. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, while making the assessment under the E.D. Act, examined in detail the necessary records and also obtained cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccounts clearly showed that the revaluation was only intended to improve the picture presented by the balance-sheet which prior to the revaluation was rather bleak by reason of accumulated losses, that the Assistant Controller has considered this aspect of the matter before deciding to accept the declared value for the interest of the deceased in the firm and that the enhancement of the value effected by the order of rectification is based on a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts and that, therefore, the rectification order manifestly fell outside the scope of s. 61. In this view, the Appellate Controller has not gone into the merits of the rectification order. The Revenue took the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce of the balance-sheet and also the explanation furnished by the accountable person, the Assistant Controller, after verifying the records, the income-tax file and the wealth-tax file relating to the deceased, accepted the return showing the value of the deceased's share in the firm at Rs, 1,29,625. Therefore, the determination of the value of the deceased's share in the firm cannot be said to have been made by oversight. If the value of the deceased's share in the firm has been accepted after due deliberation by the Assistant Controller, we do not see how it can be said to have been done by oversight. In this view, the decision taken by the Appellate Controller as well as the Tribunal that s. 61 could not be invoked in this case appears t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X