9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a 'debt' under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act ? Whether the sum of 5,01,460 being the value of the properties in the occupation of Sahabzadas and Sahebzadis was includible in the hands of the deceased as property passing ? Held that:- The High Court noted that it was not in dispute that the late Nizam was closely associated with the said Begum and they were living like husband and wife. That after her death, the Nizam took several legal proceedings holding out that he was the husband of said Begum. The Nizam himself in several proceedings mentioned her as his wife. On this evidence, therefore, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that Mazharunnisa Begum was the wife of the late Nizam and, consequently, the amount relating to her estate passed on to the Nizam after her death and, therefore, was rightly includible in the estate of the late Nizam. The aforesaid finding of the High Court is well sustained on evidence on record and calls for no interference. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The stand taken by the concerned accountable person in wealth-tax proceedings wherein it was submitted that the quarters af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 158 ITR 259) against him on five out of six questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, for opinion of the High Court under section 64(1) of the Act. The following six questions were so referred : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,56,971, relating to the estate of late Mazharunnisa Begum is includible in the estate of the deceased as passing under section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 8,23,697, representing the amount spent on the construction of quarters for dependants and Khanazadas, is includible in the estate of the deceased under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 12,61,649 and Rs. 8,85,850 representing respectively sale proceeds of the property known as 'Persi Polis' belonging to Prince Mukarram Jah and shares of Hindustan Motors Ltd., belonging to the dependants and Khanazadas Trust were held by the deceased in a fiduciary capacity and whether they are not includible in the estate of the deceased under section 22 of the Estate Duty Act ? 4. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration of Kurshud Jahi Paiga. He also recorded in his order that the representative of the accountable person had agreed for inclusion of this amount. In appeal by the accountable person the submission of the appellant that said Begum was not the wife of the late Nizam, was rejected. The said decision which resulted into reference of question No. 1 to the High Court, came to be affirmed by the High Court. The High Court noted that it was not in dispute that the late Nizam was closely associated with the said Begum and they were living like husband and wife. That after her death, the Nizam took several legal proceedings holding out that he was the husband of said Begum. The Nizam himself in several proceedings mentioned her as his wife. On this evidence, therefore, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that Mazharunnisa Begum was the wife of the late Nizam and, consequently, the amount relating to her estate passed on to the Nizam after her death and, therefore, was rightly includible in the estate of the late Nizam. The aforesaid finding of the High Court is well sustained on evidence on record and calls for no interference. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in wealth-tax proceedings obviously the cost of these constructions had to be taken as gifts made by the Nizam to the khanazadas and as the said disposition of property was within two years of his death, in the present estate duty proceedings there was no escape from the conclusion that these gifted amounts by fiction of section 9 of the Act were deemed to be property passing on his death. Question No. 2, in our view, was rightly answered against the appellant by the High Court. The said answer calls for no interference in this appeal. That takes us to the consideration of question No. 4 which has a direct linkage with the answer given by the High Court to question No. 3 in favour of the appellant. Question No. 4 : While answering question No. 3 in favour of the appellant, the High Court has noted that the sale proceeds of the property known as "Persi Polis" at Bombay which belonged to Prince Mukarram jah and shares of Hindustan Motors Limited belonging to the dependants and khanazadas were held by the deceased in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, these amounts held in trust by the late Nizam were not includible in his estate under section 22 of the Act. Once that finding wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
