9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (5) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untable person, that is the petitioner in this case, submitted account of the estate of the deceased showing a net value of Rs. 5,02,075.73 subject to reduction for tax liability. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty determined the value of the estate under the Act at Rs. 17,05,116 and, accordingly, assessment was made on July 28, 1966, under section 58(3) of the Act and demand notice and challan were issued accordingly. Thereafter, the accountable person preferred an appeal before the Appellate Controller under section 62 of the Act. The appeal was filed on October 25, 1966. While the appeal was pending the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, who passed the original order on July 28, 1966, rectified the assessment order under section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto account this area of 945 acres not under tea crops with the following observation: " (b) Area not under crops,.......945 acres. This was valued @ Rs. 600 per acre which came to Rs. 5,67,000. This is not to be taken into account." Thus, the entire sum of Rs. 5,67,000 was deducted from the total value along with other deductions. In his appellate order dated July 8, 1969, in setting out the facts and referring to the revised assessment made by the Assistant Controller, the Appellate Controller referred to the area not under crops and stated that it was assessed by the Assistant Controller at the rate of Rs. 600 per acre and this was found in the revised assessment order. But this appears to be, on the face of it, a wrong statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en subsequently by his rectified order passed under section 61 of the Act, the Appellate Controller took into account this area not under crops and he accepted the valuation of this area not under crops at the rate of Rs. 600 per acre and included that amount in the principal value of the estate and to that extent he reduced the relief given by him in his appellate order dated July 8, 1969. The question that falls for determination is whether the impugned order of the Appellate Controller passed under section 61 of the Act is within jurisdiction. Section 61 of the Act reads is follows : " 61. Rectification of mistakes.-At any time within five years from the date of any order passed by him or it, the Controller, the Appellate Controlle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this was in the rectified order. Whatever that may be, this aspect of the matter was considered by the Appellate Controller and he also did not take into account the area not under crops, and on that basis the principal value of the estate was determined and his liability to pay the duty was quantified. Thereafter, the impugned order of rectification was made. In our considered opinion, there was no such mistake apparent from the record giving jurisdiction to the Appellate Controller to pass the impugned order under section 61 of the Act. In the circumstances, we hold that, in any view of the matter, the impugned order of rectification dated November 14, 1969, is liable to be quashed, which we hereby do. The demand notice based on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
