TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of the deceased ? " Panna Lal Talwar of Amritsar died on December 14, 1975, leaving behind certain estate. His legal heir, Kashmiri Lal Talwar, filed the account of the estate duty in the status of an accountable person in response to the notice issued by the Assistant Controller of the Estate Duty, Amritsar, under section 58(2) of the Act. Deduction on account of liability of the estate duty was claimed by the accountable person from the principal value of the estate on the plea that it was in the nature of a charge on the estate of the deceased. However, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty took the view that the amount of estate duty payable under the Act was neither a debt nor an encumbrance within the ambit of section 44 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the property forming part of the estate of the deceased, but that alone will not create a legal presumption to the effect that the estate duty liability would form part of the debt within the meaning of section 44 of the Act. Liability to estate duty arises on the death of the owner of the property and, therefore, the charge, if any, comes into force after the death only. No such charge exists at the time of the death. Section 44 of the Act provides for deductions allowable in computing the value of the property passing on death. If the provisions of section 44 are read with those of section 74, it would be clear that estate duty payable on the estate of a deceased does not fall within the ambit of the former section. The debts and encu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deceased while determining the value of the property passing on death. It was held that estate duty is not allowable to be deducted under section 44 of the Act. A similar matter came up for examination before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CED v. Estate of Late Omprakash Bajaj [1977] 110 ITR 263, and a similar view was taken. A decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gunvantlal Keshavlal v. CED [1982] 134 ITR 533, and that of the Gauhati High Court in Bhawani Shankar Bagaria v. Asst. CED [1982] 137 ITR 801, also support the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Smt. V. Pramila's case [1975] 99 ITR 221 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Omprakash Bajaj's case [1977] 110 ITR 263. The Madras High Court in G. Shenbag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
