9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a number of joint family properties. There was a partition between the two brothers and half of the property, movable and immovable, was allotted to V.P. Taneja. There was an immovable property at Delhi and one at Dhanbad which were kept joint between the two brothers . V.P. Taneja died leaving behind the petitioner, his widow, the only heir. The petitioner filed an account of the properties in respect of which estate duty was payable. Respondent No. 1, for the purpose of assessing estate duty, took, except for Delhi house and Dhanbad non-residential house, half of the principal value of the property. In the case of the Delhi house and Dhanbad non-residential house, whole of the principal value was taken for assessing duty. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order of the assessing authority merged with the order of the appellate authority and if s. 61 of the Act was attracted, any mistake that was apparent from the record could have been rectified by the appellate authority and not by respondent No, 1. On this question decisions of different High Courts were cited at the bar. No decision of this High Court was cited. The decisions were based on Supreme Court decisions. The scope and applicability of the doctrine of merger came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 144 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 681 and it was observed that (p. 149 of 19 STC):- " But the doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idih Colliery. In the appellate order, with regard to two houses, it was held that as V. K. Taneja had one-half share in each, half of the principal value be included in the estate; valuation of West Munidih Colliery made by respondent No. 1 was upheld. The question, therefore, is when the petitioner challenged the validity of the assessment order with regard to the principal value to be included in the estate in respect of these items of the property, and did not challenge any other part of the order, it can be held that the whole order of respondent No. 1 merged with the order of respondent No. 2. Under s. 62 of the Act, any person objecting to any valuation made or to any order made determining the duty, or to any penalty levied under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
