9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of entire movable property as passing on the death of the deceased. 2. Inclusion of entire immovable property as passing on the death of the deceased. 3. Valuation of immovable property. Issue 1: Inclusion of Entire Movable Property The deceased had only a 50% share in the movable properties, with the other 50% belonging to his wife. The appellant argued that the Assistant Controller and Appellate Controller were unjustified in including the entire movable property as passing on the death of the deceased. The appellant relied on the partnership deed dated 20th December 1963, which indicated that the deceased and his wife jointly owned the movable assets. The Assistant Controller, however, held that the deceased and his son were already separate in 1963 due to a partial partition in respect of the business assets, and thus, the deceased was the sole surviving coparcener. Consequently, the entire movable assets were included as having passed on the death of the deceased. The Appellate Controller upheld this view, citing decisions from the Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court, which established that a female member in an HUF had no ownership in the property belonging to the family, and the deceased male member alone owned the entire property. Issue 2: Inclusion of Entire Immovable Property The deceased had only a 1/3rd share in the immovable property, with the remaining 2/3rd belonging to his wife and son in equal shares. The appellant contended that the property remained joint at the time of the death of the deceased, and thus, only the 1/3rd share should be considered as passing on the death of the deceased. The Assistant Controller rejected this contention and included the value of the entire immovable property. The Appellate Controller also upheld this inclusion, relying on the principle that a female member in an HUF had no ownership in the property. However, the Tribunal found that since the family remained joint in respect of the immovable property, the deceased had only a 1/3rd share. Under Section 7 read with Section 39 of the ED Act, only the 1/3rd share should be deemed to have passed on the death of the deceased. Issue 3: Valuation of Immovable Property The valuation of 34 acres of land was contested. The Appellate Controller reduced the valuation to Rs. 2000 per acre, allowing a relief of Rs. 34,000. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Controller's valuation, finding no material to support a lower value. The valuation of Rs. 2000 per acre was upheld. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It upheld the inclusion of the entire movable property as passing on the death of the deceased, following the principle that the deceased, being the sole surviving coparcener, owned the entire property. However, it directed the Assistant Controller to include only the 1/3rd share of the value of the immovable properties, as the family remained joint in respect of the same. The valuation of the immovable property at Rs. 2000 per acre was also upheld.
|
