9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 regarding exemption for property exclusively used for residence. Analysis: The accountable persons filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-C, primarily challenging the denial of exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for one-fourth share of a property in Baroda used by the deceased for residence. The deceased, a co-owner of the property with his brothers, worked as a ground engineer for Air India and traveled extensively. The Assistant Controller included the entire value of the deceased's share in the property in the estate, rejecting the plea for exemption. The Appellate Controller upheld this decision, stating that the property was not exclusively used by the deceased for residential purposes, as he resided with his family in Bombay while on duty. The accountable persons contended that the deceased owned only this property and stayed in rented houses elsewhere for work purposes. The crux of the issue was the interpretation of 'exclusively used' in section 33(1)(n) and whether it required sole occupancy by the deceased. The accountable persons argued that the legislative intent behind the exemption was not to restrict it to sole occupancy by the deceased but to properties exclusively used for residential purposes. They cited legal commentators emphasizing that the property should be used exclusively for residence, not necessarily exclusively by the deceased. The Tribunal noted that the deceased shared the property with his brothers when in Baroda and rejected the revenue's argument that personal exclusive residence by the deceased was necessary for the exemption. The Tribunal held that such a restrictive interpretation would defeat the legislative intent and granted relief to the accountable persons for the one-fourth share of the property used by the deceased for residence. In conclusion, the Tribunal reversed the decisions of the lower authorities and partially allowed the appeal, granting relief to the accountable persons for the deceased's share in the property at Baroda used for residential purposes. The judgment clarified that the exemption under section 33(1)(n) did not require exclusive personal residence by the deceased but exclusive use of the property for residential purposes.
|
