TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in respect of the estate of the late Repaka Viswanatharao, who passed away on February 9, 1978. She filed the return of the estate before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, valuing the estate at Rs. 2,11,652. The first respondent-Assessing Officer determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 3,70,140 while framing the assessment under section 58(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (for short "the Act"), dated December 6, 1978, and levied the duty of Rs. 39,001, which was paid by the petitioner. The first respondent later initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 59 of the Act dated August 17, 1982, calling upon the petitioner to deliver an account of all properties in respect of which estate duty is pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her grievance regarding the framing of reassessment beyond the period of limitation and non-disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under section 61 and also bringing to the notice of the Commissioner about the proposal to levy penalty. The said petition was presented before the Commissioner on November 4, 1989. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter the first respondent did not take any further steps with reference to the proposed action to levy penalty. It is further stated that the petitioner has stated in the representation dated November 4, 1989, to the first respondent, about the pendency of the rectification petition filed under section 61 against the reassessment order. Thereafter also there was no response with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under section 61 of the Act on February 17, 1983, for rectification of the assessment so as to cancel the assessment and dropping of the reassessment proceedings. But no action was taken, though the first respondent was under an obligation to dispose of the said application. Therefore, it is contended that the action of the first respondent in issuing a notice of demand on February 9, 1990, has no legal force and it cannot be enforced against the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the action of the first respondent. It is stated that reassessment was framed as early as on September 7, 1982. The petitioner has got a remedy of appeal against the said reassessment. As the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estate. However, assessment was framed determining the net principal value at Rs. 5,90,140 and the tax payable thereon at Rs. 43,965. The contention of the petitioner is that the reassessment is barred by limitation and therefore the petitioner filed an application under section 61 of the Act for rectification of the assessment. As the said application was not disposed of, the petitioner was under the impression that her application would be considered on the merits and decided in her favour. But, however, subsequent proceedings were initiated by the first respondent proposing to levy the penalty by his communication dated October 27, 1989. Though no further action was taken in response to the said notice, but, however, they have issued a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) in the case of a first assessment, after the expiration of five years from the date of death of the deceased in respect of whose property estate duty became payable; and (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." A perusal of clause (b) shows that in the case of reassessment the period of limitation is three years from the date of assessment of such property to estate duty. As admittedly no proceedings were initiated and reassesment was framed within the period of three years from the date of original assessment, the reassessment is clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
