9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Controller estimated the value at Rs. 1,56,040 and allowed deduction of Rs. 1 lakh under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act') and included the balance of Rs. 56,040 in the value of the property passing on death. The valuation made by the Assistant Controller was not accepted by the accountable person. He filed appeal before the Controller (Appeals), and raised several objections regarding the value adopted by the Assistant Controller. It was submitted that the wife of the deceased had a right of maintenance which included right of residence in the flat, and as such, that liability should be deducted. In the alternative, he submitted that the said liability amounted to an encumbrance on the property. All these contentions were rejected by the Controller (Appeals). In the memorandum of appeal filed before us, the first ground raised was that provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the 1957 Rules'), should be applied in valuing the said flat. The contention on behalf of the department is that the assessee had never made any claim for valuation under rule 1BB before the lower authorities and, as such, the said claim could not be entertained at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is under consideration before the Tribunal. The plea raised is a legal plea touching the valuation and when the valuation is under challenge, a plea of this nature can be taken before the Tribunal even though it had not been taken before the lower authorities. The question of valuation in all its aspects has to be determined by the Tribunal as a final authority on fact and, as such, all legal pleas pertaining to valuation can be properly raised before the Tribunal. We, therefore, reject the preliminary objection of the department to the effect that the assessee was not entitled to raise the plea in question. 3. The next question to be considered is whether valuation should be made in accordance with the provisions of rule 1BB. Rules framed under the Act do not contain any special provision for valuation of residential property. Such special provisions are contained only under the Wealth tax Act, 1957 ('the 1957 Act'). The question of valuation of the same house as on or about the same date may arise simultaneously in proceedings under the 1957 Act and the 1953 Act. It would be wholly anomalous if the same property is valued at different figures in two different proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follow the principle laid down in the said decision of the Bombay High Court and direct the Assistant Controller to make valuation in accordance with the provisions of rule 1BB. 5. It was expressly submitted on behalf of the accountable person before us that if the plea of the assessee regarding rule 1BB was accepted, his other objections about valuation should not be considered, and that they should be deemed to have been given up. We, accordingly, do not consider other objections regarding valuation. 6. The next ground raised is that the estate duty payable was an admissible deduction. This plea must be rejected in view of the decision in Smt. V. Pramila v. CED [1975] 99 ITR 221 (Kar.). We, accordingly, reject the said ground. 7. We now come to the appeal filed by the department. The deceased had taken ten policies on the lives of his minor son and daughter. The total premia payable was Rs. 5,394.50 per annum. The premium for two years amounted to Rs. 10,789. According to the Assistant Controller, the premium paid during the last two years of the death of the deceased amounted to gift to those children. He relied on section 9(1) read with section 27 of the Act and added th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee's heirs. The Assistant Controller was of the opinion that the renewal commission which the deceased was to receive in subsequent years constitute property passing on death. He sought information from LIC about the renewal commission. The LIC gave the following certificate: "Certified that the value as on 24-11-1979, the date of death of Shri Jayantilal P. Joshi of the future renewal commission payable on the policies, particulars relating the policy number, name of life assured, date of commencement of policy, table and term of assurance, sum assured, annual premium and rate of renewal commission whereby are given in attached statement, is estimated to be Rs. 63,257.35 (Rupees sixty-three thousand two hundred fifty-seven and paise thirty-five only)." The Assistant Controller, on the basis of the certificate, added Rs. 63,257.35 in the value of the property passing on death. In the appeal filed by the accountable person, the Controller (Appeals) observed that future commission had no element of certainty and that it represented only contingent interest that cannot pass on death. He, therefore, deleted the said amount. The department has challenged the said deletion. 10. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
