9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat passport has been issued at Bombay by the passport officer to the Govt. of Bombay. In this passport the domicile of the deceased is shown as in Bombay. The national status of the said deceased is shown as follows : "British subject by birth, wife of a British subject by naturalisation of Russian origin. Imperial certificate granted by the Government of India on 17th November, 1926. " The entries in this passport show that the said deceased travelled abroad extensively in Europe in 1932 and returned to India in December, 1932. Further, the entries show that she travelled abroad in 1936, and in the course of these travels entered Austria more than once, and returned to India in 1936. On expiry, this passport was renewed up to 18th January, 1941. The next passport obtained by the said deceased was dated 28th June, 1956. That passport is a British passport. It does not contain any reference to the domicile of the deceased at all, but states India as the place of her residence. It may be noted here that in the earlier passport of 1932 there was no column to show the residence of the passport holder. The passport dated 28th June, 1956, was revalidated up to 28th June, 1966. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed was not domiciled in India at the time of her death and, hence, the value of the said foreign movables was not liable to be included in the estate of the said deceased liable to the charge of the estate duty. It is this finding of the Tribunal which has given rise to the question set out above. Before going into the contentions advanced by the respective counsel, it will be in order to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Part III of the said Act deals with exceptions from the charge of duty. Sub-section (1) of s. 21 of the said Act runs as follows: "(1) There shall not be included in the property passing on the death of the deceased (a) immovable property situated outside India; (b) movable property situated outside India at the time of the death, unless (i) in the case of any property, whether settled or not, the deceased was domiciled in India at the time of his death; or (ii) in the case of settled property of which the deceased was life tenant, the settlor was domiciled in India at the date the settlement took effect. " Clause (d) of sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the said Act, being the interpretation section, provides as follows: " (d) the domicile of a pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the statement made by the respondent herein in the estate duty return of the said George which shows George's place of domicile as being India. It was contended by Mr. Kotwal that the entire approach of the Tribunal was incorrect as it had proceeded on the assumption that the said George was not domiciled in India and was domiciled in the United Kingdom, although there was no finding to that effect. Mr. Kotwal placed strong reliance on the entry in the said passport of 1932 issued to the said deceased to the effect that she was the wife of George, a British subject by naturalisation and of Russian origin and the reference in the said entry to the certificate granted by the Govt. of India. It was urged by Mr. Kotwal that the provisions of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (4 and 5 Geo. 5 c. 17) (hereinafter referred to as " the Naturalisation Act "), show that the said George who obtained a certificate of naturalisation under the Naturalisation Act must have stayed in India continuously for a number of years prior to the time when he made the application for naturalisation. As far as the said deceased is concerned, we must point out that it is quite clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Naturalisation Act is concerned, a circumstance on which great reliance was placed by Mr. Kotwal, we find that this does not in any way indicate that the said George must have resided in India continuously for a number of years as suggested by Mr. Kotwal. Section 2 of the Naturalisation Act deals with the certificate of naturalisation to be issued by the Secretary of State. Section 3 thereof deals with the effect of a certificate of naturalisation, and s. 8 deals with the power of Governments of British possessions to grant certificates of imperial naturalisation. It is unnecessary to set out or discuss these provisions in detail, because it is accepted by both the counsel before us that under these provisions all that was required of a person for obtaining a certificate of naturalisation in India was that such person must have resided in India for one year immediately prior to the making of his application for such certificate, and during the period of seven years prior to that year he must have resided in any British possession for period of four years. In view of this, all that can be inferred from George having obtained such a certificate of naturalisation is that he must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord Warrington which show that the form of the declaration did not appear to have been issued with any official authority and it went beyond the requirements of the statute, which did not include any intention to " permanently " reside in the United Kingdom. It was next urged by Mr. Kotwal that sufficient importance had not been attached by the Tribunal to the fact that in the passport obtained by the said deceased in 1932, as aforesaid, her domicile was mentioned as Bombay. It was submitted by him that this entry in the said passport showed that according to the deceased her husband, George, had formed permanent intention to settle down in India when the application for the said passport was made. It was also urged by Mr. Kotwal that the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that in the estate duty return filed by the respondent in respect of the estate of the said George the domicile of the said George was mentioned as in India. We find, however, that in regard to these two circumstances certain explanations have been given on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal. After taking the total evidence into account the Tribunal accepted these explanations and found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been rightly accepted by the Tribunal or otherwise. That would be a question of appreciation of evidence and purely a question of fact. Moreover, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the declaration made by the said deceased in her application for a foreign liquor permit to the effect that she had a fixed and settled purpose of making her sole and permanent home in Austria. It is true, as urged by Mr. Kotwal, that this by itself would not give the deceased a domicile in Austria, if she did not have that domicile before, because it is common ground that after the death of her husband, the said George, the said deceased had not gone to Austria. The aforesaid statement made by the said deceased in her application does, however, show that it was not her intention to make India her permanent home. Considerable reliance has been placed by 'the Tribunal on this statement'. In our view, therefore, there is no such evidence on record as, would establish that the deceased had an intention of making India her permanent home after the death of the said George, and in view of this it cannot be said that after the death of the said George the said deceased acquired her domicile of choice in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
