9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Controller, Estate Duty, treated the lands, which had been purchased in the name of the petitioner, his wife and son as the properties of the joint family of which Swamy was an undivided coparcener at the time of his death. The petitioner bought the lands in his name several years before the death of Swamy. The acquisitions in the names of the petitioner's wife and son were also considerably anterior to 1956, when Swamy died. The jewellery which was valued by the Assistant Controller at Rs. 5,000 belonged exclusively to the petitioner's wife and was not the property of the joint family of the deceased, Swamy. These are two main allegations on which this writ petition is founded. The Assistant Controller thought that the petitioner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner, his wife and son were acquired with the funds of the joint family. Nor does the order disclose any foundation for holding that the entire properties were treated as joint family properties. If these two premises are eschewed, there is hardly anything to sustain the impugned order. Surely, the Assistant Controller was not entitled to make any surmise or conjecture and clothe it in the phraseology of a finding of fact. If a finding of fact is wholly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, in other words, if it is a finding based on no evidence, it cannot be regarded as a finding at all in the eye of law. Such a finding cannot form the basis of any valid order. As against this, the learned counsel for the department contends tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that evidence, there would be an obvious failure of natural justice. The order of the Assistant Controller also speaks about certain local enquiries. There is nothing to show what those local enquiries were like or who were the persons of whom the enquiries were made or when the enquiries were made. The information gathered from those enquiries was not put to the petitioner for his explanation or contradiction. It does not appear that the petitioner even knew of these local enquiries or of the information elicited as a result of the enquiries. Thus it appears to me that one of two things has taken place: either the basic facts were assumed by the Assistant Controller as a matter of sheer surmise de hors any evidence whatsoever or, if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e flagrant flaws going to the root of the matter, I do not think I should dismiss the writ petition by pointing to the petitioner the Appellate Director at Delhi. This is especially so when the time for appealing to the Appellate Director has long expired. The statement of the learned counsel for the department that the Appellate Director might condone the delay in preferring the appeal is but poor consolation to the petitioner. I am not satisfied that, in a case like the present, where an order has been based on a finding unsupported by any evidence or where there has been a clear violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order, I should dismiss the writ petition on the rather technical and narrow ground that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
