Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1984 (2) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate of the deceased at Rs. 17,57,738. In doing so, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty took into account Rs. 4,97,988 representing the book debts and other advances as admitted by the accountable persons after discussion with them and their representative and this included sum of Rs. 21,340, representing the salary overdrawn by Sri T. M. Nagarajan. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Thanjavur, the accountable persons preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Madras-6, and therein, the inclusion, in the principal value of the estate, of certain debts due to the estate, was disputed on the ground that owing to disputes and misunderstandings which had arisen between the different heirs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the principal value of the estate of the amount of Rs. 21,340 representing the salary overdrawn by the accountant, Sri T. M. Nagarajan. -Dealing with the claim for exclusion made by the accountable persons, the Tribunal took the view that as Sri T. M. Nagarajan left the services of the legal representatives of the deceased, A. M. Hameed, in 1966 and his whereabouts were not known and no legal action for recovery of the amounts was taken considering the cost of litigation and the bleak chances of recovery, it would not be reasonable to include the debt of Rs. 21,340 due from Sri T. M. Nagarajan in the principal value of the estate. In this view, the debt of Rs. 21,340 due to the estate of the deceased was directed by the Tribunal to be delet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... :'property " is indeed very wide and would take within its sweep a variety of interests and rights as falling within the scope of the expression " property ". There is no dispute before us that the debt due from Sri T. M. Nagarajan on May 25, 1965, when A. M. Sahul Hameed died, constituted " property " of the deceased. Under s. 2(16) of the Act, " property passing on death " include a. property passing either immediately on the death or after any interval, either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and " on the death " includes " at a period ascertainable only by reference to the death". With reference to the debt of Rs. 21,340 due from Sri T. M. Nagarajan to A. M. Sahul Hameed, there is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al value of the estate merely because subsequent to the death of the deceased, the debt is claimed to be a bad debt by the accountable persons. Indeed, we may observe that our attention was not drawn to any provision in the Act which recognises or permits the exclusion of a debt, which was legally recoverable at the time of the death of the deceased, from the principal value of the estate, on the ground that such a debt, subsequent to the death of the deceased, had been claimed to be a bad debt. We may point out that the concept of exclusion of bad debts from the principal value of the estate, appears to be totally alien to the scheme of the Act as well as to the provisions thereunder. The Tribunal, in this case, had been influenced by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f being recovered from the debtor, Sri T. M. Nagarajan, by Sri A. M. Sahul Hameed, when he died on May 25, 1965. The circumstance that six years subsequently, the accountable persons chose to write off those debts, would not enable them to claim an exclusion or seek an allowance of the entire debt as a bad debt, which as pointed out earlier, does not fit in with the policy, scheme or provisions of the Act. The circumstances relied on by the Tribunal cannot, in our view, override the provisions of the Act and cannot be pressed into service to exclude the debt due in a sum of Rs. 21,340 from the principal value of the estate. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error when it concluded that it would not be reasonable to include the debt of Rs. 21, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates