9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of lineal descendants' shares in the estate for estate duty purposes. 2. Competency of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to rectify an order approved by the Deputy Controller. 3. Appealability of the rectification order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. 4. Determination of a mistake apparent from the record and whether it is a debatable issue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Lineal Descendants' Shares in the Estate: The primary issue was whether the shares of lineal descendants should be included in the estate for estate duty purposes. The Assistant Controller initially included these shares based on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Hari Ram v. Asstt. CED. However, the A.Ps. (appellants) sought rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, citing the Madras High Court's decision in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asstt. CED and a Supreme Court report suggesting the law had settled in favor of excluding such shares. The Assistant Controller initially agreed and rectified the order but later reversed this decision, realizing the Supreme Court had not settled the issue. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Controller's final decision to include the shares, noting that the decision was based on a binding precedent within the jurisdiction, and no debatable issue was involved. 2. Competency of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty: The A.Ps. argued that the Assistant Controller lacked the authority to rectify an order approved by the Deputy Controller. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Controller acted within his powers under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the original rectification was based on a misinterpretation of the law, which was later corrected. 3. Appealability of the Rectification Order: The Revenue raised an additional ground questioning whether an appeal lay against the rectification order under section 61. The Tribunal rejected this ground, citing that the rectification order resulted in an additional estate duty demand, making it appealable under section 62(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act. This view was supported by decisions from the Kerala High Court in CED v. P.E. Venkitraman and the Gujarat High Court in CED v. Jayantilal Keshav Mehta. 4. Determination of a Mistake Apparent from the Record: The Tribunal analyzed whether the issue of including lineal descendants' shares was a debatable point of law. It concluded that the mistake was apparent from the record due to the initial misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's position. The Tribunal relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT v. Mohan Lal Kansal, which held that authorities within a jurisdiction are bound by the High Court's decision. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Controller's initial rectification was based on an erroneous report, and the subsequent correction was justified. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., emphasizing that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not subject to debate. Separate Judgments: The Judicial Member disagreed with the Accountant Member, arguing that the issue was debatable due to conflicting High Court decisions and pending Supreme Court cases. The Judicial Member emphasized that the Tribunal should follow the Supreme Court's guidance on debatable issues and not rectify orders based on such issues. The difference in opinion led to a reference to the President of the Tribunal. Third Member's Decision: The President of the Tribunal, acting as the Third Member, concurred with the Accountant Member, noting that the Supreme Court had settled the issue in Asstt. CED v. V. Devaki Ammal, thereby confirming the inclusion of lineal descendants' shares. This decision resolved the conflict and upheld the Assistant Controller's final rectification. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, reversed the Appellate Controller's order, and restored the Assistant Controller's order dated 25-5-1984, affirming the inclusion of lineal descendants' shares in the estate for estate duty purposes.
|
