9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in view of the proviso to section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act and in restoring the appeals back to the Appellate Controller for disposal according to law ? " (T.C. Nos. 209 and 210 of 1972). At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty another question was referred in the same case as directed by this court and that question runs as follows : " Whether the Tribunal was also right in giving a finding on merits of the levy of penalty while deciding the competency of the appeal filed before the Appellate Controller ? " (T.C. Nos. 100 and 101 of 1977). The questions referred to in T.C. Nos. 210 of 1972 and 101 of 1977 relate to the same estate, while in T.C. Nos. 209 of 1972 and 100 of 1977 relate to another estate. The questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Controller in the following circumstances : The accountable persons filed the appeal before the Appellate Controller on July 17, 1969. They had applied to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty for stay of collection of tax and the Assistant Controller granted time till December 31, 1969. The appeal came to be disposed of on August 30, 1969, and time had been granted by the Assistant Controller on August 16, 1969, itself. Therefore, at the time when the appeal came to be heard by the Appellate Controller there was time for payment of tax till December 31, 1969. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal allowed the appeal and restored the matter to the Appellate Controller for consideration on the merits of the case. We had occasion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal as regards the liability to pay the penalty itself. These observations are connected with the questions regarding the maintainability of the appeal itself. In the circumstances no exception could be taken to the observations made by the Tribunal, because they were necessary for the disposal of the appeal before it. The Tribunal could not be found fault with if it restored the appeal to the Appellate Controller for disposal according to law. The question in T.C. No. 209 of 1972 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. We answer the separate question in T.C. No. 100 of 1977 in the affirmative and against the revenue. We similarly answer the questions covered by T.C. Nos. 210 of 1972 and 101 of 1977. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
