TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, the maintenance and educational expenses for the unmarried daughters are deductible expenses from the total value of the estate for the purpose of levying estate duty ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the maintenance expenses of the widow of the deceased is not deductible from the principal value of the estate of the deceased for duty Purposes ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estate duty payable on the estate of the deceased is not deductible from the principal value of the estate for the purpose of levying estate duty ? " Of the four questions, questions 2, 3 and 4 are concluded against the accountable person by the decision of this court in CED v. Smt. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due to him from the estate than his brother. The deceased died on November II, 1964, i. e., within two years of the partition. The Asst. Controller was of the opinion that half the difference between the amount relinquished by the deceased and the amount relinquished by his brother has to be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate under ss. 2(15) and 27 read with s. 9 of the E.D. Act. He was of the opinion that inasmuch' as the relinquishment occurred within two years of the death, it must be treated as a gift. On appeal, the Appellate Controller agreed with the Asst. Controller and dismissed the appeal. The accountable person appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal too agreed with the stand taken by the Department and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of his death, the father owed the aforesaid two sums to his two sons. The two sons, after the death of the father, divided all the assets of the father equally between them. It is further found that " while partitioning the father's estate, the two brothers relinquished their respective debts due from the estate and divided the assets in equal shares. Thus the deceased had relinquished a larger amount due from the father's estate than that due to his brother". It is on the above finding that we have to determine the true nature of the transaction and to determine what actually happened on the date of the partition, namely, on December 2, 1963. In a partition, the parties have to divide both the assets and liabilities equally. An une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contention that the Tribunal has not specifically recorded any finding regarding the existence of an understanding or an agreement between the brothers, this is, in our opinion, too technical an argument. The Tribunal has clearly found that this relinquishment was effected by the brothers at the time of partition. In other words, it was one single transaction. There can be no partition without an understanding or an agreement between the concerned parties. If the division of the properties was under or in pursuance of an agreement, the giving up of debts must also be ascribed to the same understanding. Sri S. R. Ashok relied upon an observation of the Tribunal in para. 8 of its judgment: " Here it is not a case of partition, but it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
