9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1982-83, the ITO made an addition of Rs. 99,000 and Rs. 12,72,980 for asst. yr. 1981-82 on account of income from the estate of her deceased husband. By his order dt. 24th Feb., 1986 relating to asst. yr. 1982-83 passed under s. 250 of the IT Act, the CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs. 99,000. 3. Subsequently, the ITO filed an application under s. 154 of the Act before the CIT(A), requesting him to rectify the mistake apparent from record. In that behalf the ITO pointed out that the deceased had died intestate leaving no will behind him whereas in disposing of assessee's appeal against the assessment order, the CIT(A) had proceeded to delete the addition on the assumption that a wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal." It would be noticed that the assessee has not challenged the applicability of the provisions of s. 154 of the Act. However, when the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the assessee sought to raise the following additional ground: "That order under s. 154 passed by learned CIT(A) is beyond jurisdiction as it raises highly debated points of law and hence it be cancelled as such." In his order, the learned Judicial Member, after discussing the circumstances under which action under s. 154 of the Act could be taken, admitted the aforesaid additional ground and set aside the order of the CIT(A) dt. 17th March, 1986 as under: "11. To sum up, we are of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of s. 154 and the situations to which these are applicable but would reiterate that these would not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In the final analysis, I would reject the additional ground raised by the assessee. I may mention at this stage that we heard both the parties on the merits of the case as well but since my learned brother has not adjudicated upon these I am not in a position to express my views. The merits would be required to be decided after the difference of opinion has been resolved by the Third Member." 5. Since there was difference of opinion between the two Members of the Division Bench, the matter was referred to the Third Member (Sr. Vice-President) who after hearing both the parties, by his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee was only an administrator of the estate of the late ex-ruler and till the administration of estate was complete, the provisions of s. 168 will apply. The learned counsel further submitted that the estate of the late ex-ruler of the erstwhile State of Dhar has been assessed to tax on substantive basis from the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1987-88 both under the income-tax and wealth- tax as per the details on page 9 of the paper book. The estate duty case of the late ex-ruler was completed in the year 1988 and only thereafter the administration of the estate came to an end and the assessee inherited the estate of late Shri Anandrao Paur. The learned counsel submitted that assessing the estate in the hands of the assessee will amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has been assessed on substantive basis in respect of the estate of her late husband both to income-tax and wealth-tax by the ITO, Indore from the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1987-88. It is a fundamental rule of the Law of Taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twiceLaxmipat Singhania vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291, 294 (SC). This fact shows that the administration of the estate was not complete during the two assessment years under appeal before us. This fact also stands established that the estate duty case of the late ex-ruler of Dhar was finalised in the year 1988. The case of the assessee stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Navnitlal Sakarlal vs. CIT (1991) 100 CTR ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lities and when these were discharged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the fact that estate duty was a personal liability of the heirs and was a charge on the immovable properties passing on death did not detract from the duties and responsibilities of the executor, as an accountable person, to make satisfactory arrangements for the payment of the estate duty. The fact that a part of the estate duty liability was outstanding could not be ignored in deciding the issue as to whether the administration was complete. The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bakshi Sampuran Singh and of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. A Ghosh (1986) 52 CTR (Cal) 418 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
