9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the estate of the deceased for rate purposes, was justified under section 34(1)(c) of the Act ? " At the time of the hearing of the reference we were not addressed on question No. I by the learned counsel for the accountable person. This question, therefore, does not survive for our consideration. Coming to the other question the facts giving rise to it, in brief, are that one Sri Balwant Singh died on October 27, 1965. His wife, Smt. Pritam Kaur, as well died a little later and their son, Devendra Singh, filed statement of the estate left by the deceased Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh constituted a joint family with his son, Devendra Singh, and hence the value of the interest of the lineal descendants in the joint family property was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the valuation of the interest in a coparcenary property ceasing on death and s. 40 for a valuation of the benefit from interests ceasing on death. Sub-s. (1) of s. 39 assumes partition in the joint family property as on the date of the death of the deceased and provides that the principal value of the share which would have been allotted to the deceased is to be considered as the value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cesser of a coparcenary interest in any joint family property governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. According to the learned counsel, S. 34(1)(c) cannot override the provisions of ss. 39 and 40 as also of the charging section. The learned counsel further continued to urge that if for a valuation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disparity in the incidence of estate duty on the estate of persons belonging to families governed by the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana Schools of Hindu law on the one hand and those governed by the Dayabhaga and other personal laws which do not recognise acquisition of interest by birth on the other. This provision does not enlarge the scope of the charging section nor does it override the provisions contained in ss. 39 and 40 of the Act. It was enacted with a particular object in view and so long as this provision is on the statute book it cannot be held to be redundant or otiose. It has to be given effect to. As noted above the submissions made by Sri Gulati are based on the decision of the Madras High Court in Devaki Amm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
