9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri S.P. Mehta regarding the domicile of the deceased. Shri S.P. Mehta has stated that the deceased Shri Nanavati had an Indian domicile. It appears that he wanted to migrate and settle down in USA. For that he has made an application for naturalisation some time in 1974 to which the appropriate authority by his reply dated 20-6-1974 had informed him that he was not eligible for naturalisation for the reason mentioned in that reply. According to the reply, Mr. Nanavati would have been eligible to file application for naturalisation after 4 years plus 1 day after his return to USA. In these circumstances, he could not emigrate to USA. The question for consideration is whether he has ceased to be of Indian domicile. He has further stated that Shri Nanavati wanted to acquire American citizenship which is obvious from his application and the reply. Before he could acquire the citizenship of America it appears he has to reside in America for a certain period. In other words, he has to stay in America for a certain period with the intention of making it his permanent home. The fact that he has been doing so is obvious. Accordingly it should be argued that even though Mr. Nanavati did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed would have also taken decision to come back to India after some time. The mere fact that the deceased was out of India and was having his service over there would not lead to the inference that he had acquired a domicile of choice in USA. It is a settled position in law that the ties which bind a person to the country of his domicile of origin are extremely strong and that there must be cogent and reliable evidence to show that he intended to settle in some other country before he could be said to have given up his domicile of origin. From the facts stated hereabove I am of the opinion that the deceased was an Indian domicile as stated by Shri Vasavada in his letter dt. 26-12-1983 and that all his Indian and foreign assets should be taxed accordingly as per provisions of the Estate Duty Act." The learned first appellate authority decided the issue in favour of the accountable person and his reasoning, which is a very lucid and detailed one, based on cogent reasoning, is to the following effect :-- "(2) I have carefully considered the facts of record. While some of the points considered by the ACED like non-acquisition of immovable property in USA are relevant to the issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial fact. The ACED has decided the issues by taking into account the facts obtaining just prior to the death of the deceased. In my opinion, what is relevant to be decided is not only whether the deceased had chosen to change his domicile but also when. In other words, whether the deceased had at any point of time, not necessarily in the last few years of his life, decided to stay permanently in USA. If there was a clear change of domicile in an earlier year, then by mere reason of transfer of IBM assignment to some other country in the course of his employment in USA, will not result in change of domicile from USA to a third country which can gain include India. In this case, the claim made is not that the deceased had chosen to have his domicile in France. The claim is that he had chosen to change his domicile to USA. The first question to be decided is the acceptability of a claim, if it is claimed that boy of 14, who went to the state in 1956 and stayed there for his studies and employment till 1970, was married and was having children there, had, during the period of 14 years stay there chosen to change his domicile to the USA. If there are evidences to show that he had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority has contended that a domicile has to be gathered from circumstances and the intention of the deceased and it is not anything which can be considered on hypothetical grounds. 4. Having given our anxious thoughts to the submissions made before us as also to the reasoning of the learned lower authorities, we are of the considered opinion and do hold accordingly that the impugned order of learned first appellate authority warrants no interference at our level since it is based on proper appreciation of facts and law. 5. Domicile connotes voluntarily fixed habitation. The place in which a person has a fixed permanent house. A man's first domicile is that of his origin which depends on his father. When he attains majority he can make a domicile of choice and is held to be domiciled when he resides, if he intends to remain there, making it his house. On giving up a domicile of choice, a man reverts to his domicile of origin until he has acquired another domicile of choice. In the case of State v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame AIR 1958 Bom. 68 (FB), their Lordships of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court have defined 'domicile' in the following terms :-- 'D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same principle as is applied in the United Kingdom (see Phillips on Prabate - Duty, 5th Edn. Page 322). Distinction between Nationality and Domicile. Under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 (Act 57 of 1955) citizen means in relation to a country specified in the first schedule (to that Act) a person who under the citizenship or national law for the time being in force in that country is a citizen or national of that country. Domicile denotes the relation between a person and a particular territorial unit possessing its own system of law. It determines his personal status and the law applicable to him in matters such as majority or minority, marriage, divorce, and succession. Nationality or citizenship does not concern itself with these matters. It relates to the acquisition or renunciation of the citizen owing allegiance to one country wanting to acquire a new citizenship in another country. For such acquisition different countries have laid down various conditions to be fulfilled before admitting a person of one nationality in one country to acquire a new nationality in another country, one of such conditions being the oath of allegiance. A person can have only one nationality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
