9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Inclusion of Government securities in the dutiable estate under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a question referred to the High Court by the Tribunal under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act regarding the inclusion of Government securities worth Rs. 1 lakh in the dutiable estate. The deceased had gifted these securities to his wife and sons more than two years before his death. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty accepted the gifts but invoked section 10 of the Act, holding that the securities passed on to the heirs. The Appellate Controller and the Tribunal upheld the inclusion, leading to the reference to the High Court. The main issue revolved around the application of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, which deems property taken under a gift to pass on the donor's death if the donee did not assume bona fide possession and enjoyment to the exclusion of the donor. The deceased had indeed gifted the securities to his wife and sons, but the question was whether the donees had exclusive possession and enjoyment, as required by the section. The High Court analyzed the facts found by the Tribunal, which showed that the deceased had transferred the corpus of the gift to his wife and children by putting the securities in their names. Although the interest on the securities was credited to the deceased's bank account, he maintained detailed accounts showing the interest being credited to the donees' accounts. The Tribunal found that the interest remained in the bank account and was not utilized by the deceased for his benefit. Additionally, a month before his death, the deceased had withdrawn part of the funds and deposited them to the credit of the donees with outside firms. Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the donees had assumed bona fide possession and enjoyment of the gift to the exclusion of the donor, as required by section 10. Therefore, the value of the Government securities worth Rs. 1 lakh was excluded from the dutiable estate. The Court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the department. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the accountable person.
|
