TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 only was includible in the estate duty assessment of the deceased as his individual estate and a sum of Rs. 60,000 was includible for rate purposes as the share of the lineal descendants under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? " On the death of Brij Lal Gulati on August 4, 1971, his son, Shiv Puran Lal Gulati, submitted a return. Since the details of the return are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the questions referred, we refrain from doing so. The only fact relevant is that Shiv Puran Lal Gulati stated that the deceased Brij Lal Gulati had died leaving behind one-fourth share in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Controller and also that of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, the share of the deceased, Brij Lal Gulati, was one-third, and the value of that share should have been taken into consideration for calculating the liability. Before dealing with the aforesaid argument, we may note that the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the plots had been acquired with joint family funds is a finding of fact and this has to be accepted as correct. It has been found by the Assistant Controller that the plots were purchased by Brij Lal Gulati on September 7, 1964. This property being that of the joint family belonged to the deceased, Brij Lal Gulati, and his two sons in which the two widows of the deceased, Brij Lal Gulati, had no share i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Consolidation, AIR 1978 All 157, this court held that purchase of bhumidhari land from the nucleus of joint family was bhumidhari for all persons constituting the joint family. For the view taken, the court relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Rai v. Jai Jai Ram, AIR 1973 SC 893, where it was held that the bhumidhari rights could be acquired by all the members of a joint Hindu family, although the land was recorded in only one name. This would establish that the case of the Department that the property belonged exclusively to Brij Lal Gulati has no merit. The two authorities below, as already pointed out above, found as a fact that the plots bad been purchased out of the joint family funds. Ram Chander Dubey v. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
