9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nand Kishore, the accountable person of the deceased had shown the half share of the deceased in such property. The Asstt. CED made an upward revision of the HUF property and added half share of the deceased therein to the principal value of the estate determined by him. The Asstt. Controller further added the balance half share to the principal value for rate purposes only with the remarks "L.D. Share". There is, however, no discussion about this treatment in his order made u/s 58(3) of the Act. 3. In appeal, it was submitted that the addition of Rs. 2,67,328 for rate purposes was contrary to law. In order to better appreciate the rival stand of the parties, it would be necessary to reproduce below the submissions made on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... husband of the deceased Smt. Leela Devi died in the year 1949 (when the estate duty Act, 1953 had not come into force) leaving behind the major son Shri Nand Kishore as the only surviving male member (the only coparcener) and thus the Karta of his joint family and the widow Smt. Leela Devi and the wife of Shri Nand Kishore as members of that HUF. The question of aggregation the share of lineal descendant does not arise at all at the time of the death of Smt. Leela Devi as lineal descendant can only be in the male line and moreover a woman member cannot demand a partition of the coparcenary property. Thus she had no coparcenary interest in the joint family property an hence beyond the purview of this section." The Appellate CED accepted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present appeal. In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on othe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K. Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum Ors. (1981) 129 ITO 440 (SC), of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Tribhavan Das vs. CED (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 221 : (1981) 130 ITR 326 (Guj) and in the case of Goswami Vraj Raiji Ranchhodlalji Maharaj vs. CED 1977 CTR (Guj) 89 : (1978) 112 ITR 851 (Guj) as well as the decisions reported in AIR 1965 SC 825 and AIR 1967 SC 272. The ld. counsel for the accountable person further submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that this is not the position in law, the provisions of s. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest in the joint family property of a lineal descendant of the deceased member: shall be aggregated so as to form one estate and estate duty shall be levied there on On the plain reading of this section, it is not necessary for us to discuss the right of the deceased in the joint family property, as we are of the view that Shri Nand Kishore cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as a lineal descendant of the deceased, who was a female Hindu. The legal meaning of the expression "Lineal descendant" as appearing in the aforesaid two Legal Dictionaries clearly shows that a lineal descendant should be on a direct line form father or grand father etc. Since the deceased and Shri Nand Kishore do not fall in a direct line of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
