9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (4) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person, contended that the deceased had no interest in the wakf properties and that section 12 of the Estate Duty Act is not attracted. But the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty overruled this objection and included the wakf property also in the principal value of the estate passing. He also overruled another contention of the accountable person that the entire value of the share of Mohamed Mian Rowther & Co. (P.) Ltd. is not includible in the principal value of the estate passing, as the deceased had only 33 shares out of 495 and that it was not a controlled company attracting the provisions of section 17 of the Act. Thus, both the value of the property belonging to the wakf and the total assets of Mohamed Mian Rowther & Co. (P.) Ltd. were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to some land compensation and other recoveries and the balance of estate duty payable by the wakf was only Rs. 1,48,039.91. Since this amount was not paid as per the demand within the due date, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty initiated proceedings for levying penalty and ultimately levied penalty of a sum of Rs. 5,000 under section 73(5) of the Act by order dated November 19, 1965. The muthavalli as the accountable person in respect of the wakf property filed an appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty against this order levying penalty. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Controller summarily on the ground that the muthavalli had defaulted in payment of the duty before presenting the appeal as required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot pass under section 12 and was not includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. This view was also confirmed by this court in the reference which is reported in Controller of Estate Duty v. K. A. Kader [1974] 96 ITR 289 (Mad). The result of the order of the Tribunal was that the wakf property could not have been included by the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty in the estate of the deceased. Therefore, there was no question of payment of any duty by the muthavalli as the accountable person in respect of this wakf property. Further, it was brought to our notice that when the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, in the assessment proceedings, the muthavalli (accountable person) had obtained an order of stay of collecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
