9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Presumption of order under sections 58(3), 62/59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Relevant material or arbitrary? 2. Justification of canceling the order under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue revolves around the challenge by the Revenue regarding the Tribunal's presumption that an order was passed under section 59(a) of the Act. The Revenue argued that this presumption was arbitrary and not based on relevant materials. However, the counsel for the assessee presented the entire paper book before the Tribunal and did not identify any errors in the presumption based on the available materials. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference in question No. 1. Issue 2: The second issue concerns the cancellation of the order under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act. The case involved an estate duty assessment on the late individual's estate, where the Assistant Controller included interest in a firm and valued land at Rs. 84,652. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 59(b) due to a higher valuation of the land. The Tribunal, however, deemed this reopening improper as the Assistant Controller lacked new information to justify it. The Revenue cited a precedent where reopening was allowed if the deceased's share was inaccurately ascertained. In response, the assessee argued that the valuation was based on disclosed information and no new data prompted the reassessment. The Court noted that the disclosed value was based on the firm's balance-sheet and was not required to reflect market value as in wealth-tax returns. Since the Assistant Controller had no new information for the reassessment, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the order under section 59(b) was upheld. Consequently, both questions were answered in favor of the accountable person and against the Revenue, leading to the disposal of the reference application.
|
