9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1970. Even before his death, on March 1, 1970, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son and daughter, in respect of house sites in 14, Balakrishna Pillai Road, Teynampet, Madras, also known as 85-A, Mount Road, Madras-18. The petitioner herein, as an accountable person, filed a return to the Asst. CED in respect of the properties left by the deceased. In the return filed by him, he gave the value of the property at No. 85-A, Mount Road, Madras-18, as Rs. 1,72,600. This value was returned on the basis of the approved valuer's report fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 7,000 per ground. The Asst. CED, Madras, rejected the value of the land at Rs. 7,000 per ground, and adopted the value at Rs. 11,000 per ground and comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to a portion of the same property at an earlier stage, and also the market value fixed under the Urban Land Tax Act by the urban land tax authorities, that, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be a deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and that the value given by him is in fact a fair market value. However, the appellate authority felt that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of the particulars of the property of the deceased and of deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, and levied a penalty of Rs. 34,000. Since there is no statutory appeal against the order passed by the first respondent levying penalty in the course of the appeal proceedings, the petitioner has come before this court invoking its jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Being a legal contention, we are not in a position to shut out the petitioner's argument on the basis that it is a new contention. Section 60(1)(c) of the E. D. Act, 1953, uses the phrase " concealed the particulars of the property of the deceased or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof ". The contention put forward by the petitioner is that the property in question, which was the subject-matter before the first respondent, and in respect of which the complaint of " concealment " is made, was not the property of the deceased as it had been transferred by him, under a settlement in favour of his son and daughter, that on the date of the death of the deceased, the deceased did not die possessed of the property, and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on can be invoked only when there is a concealment of the particulars of the property, which the deceased died possessed of on the date of the death and not the properties which had passed on to third parties by a transaction, inter vivos, entered into by the deceased, while he was alive. The same principle will apply to this case as well. There, the transaction came under the purview of s. 12 of the E. D. Act. Here, the transaction comes under the purview of s. 9. But that will not make any difference to the application of the principles laid down in that case. In that case, the non-disclosure of the property settled by the deceased before his death was held not to attract s. 60(1)(c). Here, it is an a fortiorari case, where the particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
