9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; | | Arjunbai (Wife) ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Expenditure-tax [1974] 93 ITR 146 (Mad.). The Madras High Court further held that the liability of ancestral or coparcenary property of a Hindu to pay for the marriage expenses of unmarried daughters in the family would be a proper debt or encumbrance deductible under the general provisions of s. 44 where the deceased died possessed of such property. This liability does not fall under any of the special categories covered by clauses (a) to (d) s. 44 and is not subject to the limitations found therein. The only condition for claiming a deduction in this kind of case of that which the Hindu law itself imposes that the deceased's estate must comprise ancestral or coparcenary properties of the requisite value to bear the liability for the marriage expenses claimed. However, the Assistant Controller did not allow the deduction claimed in view of the following decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, viz., CED v. Smt. P. Leelavathamma [1978] 112 ITR 739, CED v. S. Srinivasulu Reddy [Reference Case No. 107 of 1976], Smt. A. Suhasini v. CED [1984] 145 ITR 220. Admittedly the estate of the deceased comprised of his share in the bigger HUF, smaller HUF as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the liability of ancestral or coparcenary property of a Hindu to pay for marriage expenses of unmarried daughters in the family would be a proper debt or encumbrance deductible under the general provisions of s. 44, where the deceased died possessed of such property." The learned counsel submitted that in this case the deceased died possessed of an undivided share in both bigger and smaller HUFs mentioned above and it was also contended that the value of the deceased's share when computed in a notional partition as having occurred on the last date of the death of the deceased would be much more than to meet the claim of Rs. 50,000 towards maintenance and marriage expenses of the deceased's daughter. Therefore, the claim is allowable. The learned departmental representative relied upon the 'A' Bench decision of this Tribunal, a copy of which is furnished to us. The said decision is rendered in ACED v. Bitla Venkateswarlu [ED Appeal No. 42 (Hyd.) of 1986] L/R of Sri Bitla Kesari Rao. One of us, Judicial Member, is a party to the said decision. The bench summarising their findings in para 8 of their orders held as follows : "We may summaris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... latter decision delivered by 'A' Bench of this Tribunal. The earlier decision being that of Pusarla Narasaraju's case on the one hand, and the latter decision being that of Bitla Venkateswarlu's case followed by the order in KVVSS Krishnamurthy, A/P late K. Lakshmidevamma, Nandyal's case on the other. Our decision not to refer the question to any Special Bench stemmed from the fact that there are binding, categorical and clear-cut decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the subject. When there is a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court available then it should prevail upon whatever view that might have been expressed on the same subject by the Tribunal of that State. Therefore, following the above principles we are bound to follow the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision when we find any difference between the view expressed by the High Court and the order of the Tribunal The Andhra Pradesh High Court and the order of the Tribunal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. P. Leelavathamma's case clearly laid down that a Hindu wife is not a dependent with the meaning of s. 21 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act so long as the husband is alive. Her claim as a dependen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the death of her father. 7. However, in Smt. A. Suhasini's case, one of the question referred for decision of the High Court was whether the maintenance and educational expenses of the numbered daughters are deductible expenses from the total value of the estate for purposes of levying estate duty. Their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the said question referred to them was concluded against the accountable person by the earlier decision of the same High Court in Smt. P. Leelavathamma's case. In the latter A. P. High Court decision in Smt. A. Suhasini's case the properties held by the deceased also comprised of the ancestral properties or the share held by the deceased in the joint family property. Even in such a case it was categorically held following Smt. P. Leelavathamma's case that the maintenance expenses of unmarried daughters are not deductible from the principal value of the estate of the deceased for the purpose of levying estate duty. The judgment in Smt. A. Suhasini's case was delivered on 24-2-1983 whereas the order in Pusarla Narasaraju's case was pronounced on 22-9-1984. The learned Bench in those circumstances ought to have followed Smt. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 21(v) of the Act, an unmarried daughter, so long as she remains unmarried, would be a dependent and the expression 'maintenance' with reference to her would include reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage, by reason of s. 3(b) (ii) of the Act and if she had obtained a share in the estate of her father under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the operation of s. 22(2) of the Act cannot be excluded. We find that this aspect has not been adverted to." Therefore the later Madras High Court decision categorically held that the impact of either s. 22(2) of the Act or s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was considered or kept in mind while deciding Dr. B. Kamalamma's case. Thus, in fact the later Madras High Court decision doubted the earlier decision of their own High Court in Dr. B. Kamalamma's case. Not only that the later Madras High Court decision followed Smt. P. Leelavathamma's case. Therefore, it is clear that following the Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions in Smt. P. Leelavathamma's case and Smt. A. Suhasini's case we have to hold that the claim of the accountable person for deduction of Rs. 50,000 towards provision for marriage of unmarried daughter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
