9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he estate of the deceased was filed on 9-11-1973. In course of assessment proceedings under the Act, details were furnished by the accountable person of all the life insurance policies which were financed out of the individual funds of the deceased and/or out of the funds of HUF of which the deceased was a coparcener. Out of the nine policies, one was in respect of estate duty and the rest of the eight policies as per statements available on record, a sum of Rs. 2,11,923 was admitted as death claim, out of which Rs. 84,729 were deducted by the LIC in respect of loans advanced by the LIC to the deceased and net payments were shown at Rs. 1,27,195. In course of filing the details of estate left by Shri Beni Parshad, four life insurance polici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted even to the reassessment order dated 30-3-1979 on the ground that sum of Rs. 57,309 was taxable as individual asset and not as HUF asset in view of legal position of this case which is well detailed in the order of the Appellate Controller including the reasons incorporated in the order sheet entry dated 8-8-1979 as a consequence of which second reassessment was initiated. The reason as such reads as under : " The audit party vide their memo No. 1 dated 26-6-1979 has pointed out that the entire amount of LIC at Rs. 2,11,923 should be treated as the estate belonging to the deceased instead of Rs. 15,464 as taken by the ACED. On the basis of the observations of the audit objection I am satisfied that the estate to the tune of Rs. 57,309 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainly attacked the order of the Appellate Controller on the basis that it is not a change of opinion ; audit memo has simply drawn attention of the Assistant Controller to facts and not to law, at most, according to him, he has drawn attention of the Assistant Controller to correct interpretation of law. He also submitted that there is concealment of plots but he was fair enough to admit that the same were not included in the reasons. He, however, did not dispute the facts after verifying his record that the reassessment notice in respect of impugned assessment was dated 8-8-1979, it was issued on 19-9-1979 and the impugned assessment was framed on 18-3-1981. Regarding the service of notice he relied on the case of Jai Hanuman Trading Co. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and service of notice. The instant case is even on a stronger fooling so far as claim of the accountable person is concerned because till the last date when the notice should have been served it did not move out of the file of the Assistant Controller. There is no dispute about the date of first assessment which is 12-8-1976 and section 73A(b) of the Act which is relevant reads as under : " 73A. No proceedings for the levy of any estate duty under this Act shall be commenced-- (b) in the case of a reassessment, after the expiration of three years from the date of assessment of such property to estate duty under this Act. " The last date, therefore, comes to be 11-8-1979 by which proceedings should have been initiated whereas the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
