9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises "), providing further that on the death of the deceased the said two premises would devolve on her two sons in equal shares. The small house and the first floor of the said premises had at all material times been let out. Till her death the deceased resided in the ground floor of the said premises. On the death of the deceased her son, Jyotirmoy Raha, an accountable person, filed a return of estate duty and claimed exemption in respect of the portion of the said premises used by the deceased for her residence under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that the said section 33(1)(n) did not apply as the said premises, in which the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsisting during her lifetime. What vested in her sons during her lifetime was merely the remainder thereof. The Tribunal followed Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, AIR 1965 SC 1923, where the Supreme Court had construed the meaning of the word " belonging " and had held that the word could signify possession of an interest less than that of full ownership. The Tribunal, accordingly, upheld the order of the Appellate Controller and dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, West Bengal, the following question of law stated lo be arising out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has been referred under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. " Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh if such house is situate in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand, and the full principal value thereof, in any other case t." At the hearing, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Controller of Estate Duty v. Estate of Late Sanka Simhachalam [1975] 99 ITR 370. The facts in this case were that the deceased had executed a settlement retaining a life interest in the residental house and had conveyed the vested remainder to his son, the accountable person. Since the deceased had only a life interest in the house the estate duty authorities took the view that the property did not belong to the deceased and, therefore, the property could not be exempted under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
