Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1981 (7) TMI HC This
Issues:
Interpretation of section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act regarding the extent of relief under the provision. Analysis: The case involved a reference made by the Tribunal under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, questioning the extent of relief under section 33(1)(n) of the Act. The deceased owned a building, a portion of which was used for her residence while the rest was let out. The Asst. Controller and the Appellate Controller held that the relief should be restricted to the proportionate value of the portion occupied by the deceased. The executor challenged this decision, arguing that the relief should cover the full extent of Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, leading to the present reference by the executor challenging this conclusion. The key contention revolved around the interpretation of section 33(1)(n) of the Act, which provides for exemption in the case of a house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for residence. The executor argued for a broad interpretation, suggesting that the exemption should apply to the entire extent of Rs. 1,00,000. However, the department's standing counsel contended that the relief was only available for the proportionate part of the property used by the deceased for her residence. The court analyzed the language of the provision and concluded that it needed to be read in two parts to avoid an unintended broad interpretation. The first part dealt with a house exclusively used by the deceased, while the second part covered a part of the house exclusively used by the deceased. The court emphasized the need for strict construction of exemption provisions and clarified that the exemption should be limited to the proportionate part of the property in cases where only a portion of the house was occupied by the deceased. Ultimately, the court rejected the executor's argument for a broader interpretation and upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that the exemption granted by the Asst. Controller was proper. The court also highlighted that provisions of one statute cannot be construed with reference to another statute. The judgment answered the reference question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
|