9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Duty Act, 1953, as it stood before amendment. The question of law referred for our opinion is : " Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 33,000 is liable to be charged in respect of the alleged jewellery owned by the deceased ? " One Sri Murigappa Chigateri died on January 12, 1957, and his son is the accountable person under the Estate Duty Act, and therefore, he filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a partition between the deceased and his son, the accountable person, on September 27, 1955, under a partition deed. Under the said partition deed, it was shown that the total value of the jewellery at the time of the partition was Rs. 18,700, out of which jewellery worth Rs. 1,700 was shown as the share of the deceased and jewellery worth Rs. 17,000 as the share of his son. The Assistant Control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the wealth statement of the deceased for the year 1952-53. A similar question arose in Smt. Shantabai Jadhav v. Controller of Estate Duty before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the said case also there was a wealth statement that the deceased was in possession of jewellery valued at Rs. 10,000. The deceased died a year and half after making the said statement. It was held that the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shantabai Jadhav's case. There was no material on which the Controller of Estate Duty and the Board of Revenue could have come to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of his death was in possession of the jewellery valued at Rs. 33,000. Therefore, the question referred has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Our opinion is that there was no material to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
