9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was, right in holding that the exemption provided in section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, should be allowed in respect of the dwelling house of the Hindu undivided family from the value of the joint family properties before determining the share of the deceased and also that of the lineal descendants, the former for assessment and the latter for aggregation ?" The estate duty assessment came to be made on the death of T. Ranganatha Mehta on 19th December, 1968.. He had 113 interest in joint family.properties. The principal value of immovable properties of the joint family was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department and the accountable person appealed to the Tribunal. The accountable person contested the valuation of No. 18, Barnaby Road. The Tribunal finally accepted the accountable person's claim and held that its value should be taken at Rs. 2,10,000, based on the valuer's report. The accountable person filed an additional ground before the Tribunal running as follows : "The Appellate Controller ought to have directed the Assistant Controller to exclude the 2/3rds share of the lineal descendant's share in determining the principal value of the estate as held by the Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24." The Tribunal held that it was not competent to deal with the issue and, therefore, rejected the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal and only the principle of the decision which is binding on the Tribunal, was invoked for application in the present case. We, therefore, consider that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that it cannot go into the additional ground as if it raised any question of vires. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to consider the additional ground in the light of the decision of this court and apply the law enunciated by this court on the point. The first question is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the revenue. The next question raises the point as to whether s. 33(1)(n) has to be applied in the present case. Section 33 occurs in Part III containing exceptions or exemptions from the charge of estate duty. Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption to the extent of rupees one lakh. After discussing the provision, this court pointed out that the value of the residential house had been taken to be Rs. 1,70,000 and that the half share to which the deceased was entitled came to Rs. 85,000. It was, therefore, held that the accountable person could get exemption only to the extent of Rs. 85,000. In other words, the direction in the said case is to value the property as a whole and then ascertain the share of the deceased. If the value of the share of the deceased exceeded rupees one lakh, then rupees one lakh would be eligible for exemption under S. 33(1)(n). If the value of the share of the deceased was less than rupees one lakh, then the entire value would be exempted from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
