9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of estate duty ? " The dispute relates to the assessment of estate duty on the estate of Brijlal who died on 12th July, 1967. The accountable person is Santram, one of the sons of the deceased. In determining the total value of the estate, an amount of Rs. 1,27,053, representing the value of the interest in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased, was added under s. 34(1)(c) of the Act by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The Appellate Controller maintained the addition subject to some relief in regard to the valuation of certain assets. In second appeal filed before the Tribunal, it was held that s. 34(1)(c) could not enable the addition made by the Asst. Controller as that section was held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowed the view expressed by one of the High Courts that the provision is invalid. Now, coming to the constitutional validity of s. 34(1)(c), we do not think it necessary to give our reasons in detail, for, we substantially agree with the reasons expressed by the Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Allahabad High Courts holding the provision to be valid. The reasoning of the Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24 in holding that s. 34(1)(c) is invalid, is that this section goes beyond the charging section and that it creates a discrimination between coparceners who are lineal descendants and coparceners who are not lineal descendants of the deceased. As regards the first ground that s. 34(1)(c) goes beyond the scope of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion the Legislature has a wide discretion of selecting properties, persons and rates and a provision in a taxing Act cannot be lightly held to be invalid on the ground of violation of art. 14 of the Constitution. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24. We would also like to point out that in an earlier case of the Madras High Court, Ramanathan Chettiar v. Asst. CED [1970] 76 ITR 402, S. 34(1)(c) was held to be valid. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is in the negative, in favour of the department and against the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
