TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Controller has been rightly upheld ? " The estate duty assessment came to be made on the death of one R. Kannan on 3rd March, 1963. The deceased was carrying on business under the name and style of " Radhakrishna Service " and " Radhakrishna Mobile Service Station ". He owned lands and houses. He left behind him his only son, Anantharama Krishnan, two married daughters and an unmarried daughter. His wife had pre-deceased him on 7th January, 1962. The deceased and his wife executed a settlement deed on 12th October, 1961, by and under which the house and ground bearing No. 15 in Fourth Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Madras, were settled on their son. By another sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rs. 42,614.95 as duty. In arriving at the principal value, he took the capital of the deceased in the businesses at an estimated figure of Rs. 1,80,000 and the value of the Adayar and Lattice Bridge properties at Rs. 67,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively. Sachidanandam preferred an appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty contending that the Assistant Controller was not justified in making the assessment under s. 58(4) of the Act and that the value of the properties covered by the settlement deeds and the trust deed should not have been included. The valuation of the properties was also questioned. The Appellate Controller, while confirming the Assistant Controller's view that the assessment had to be made under s. 58(4) wen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but also to make such further enquiries as he thought fit. The result was that the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Appellate Controller was dismissed. The two questions referred arise out of this order of the Tribunal. Section 58 of the E.D. Act provides for the assessment of the principal value of the estate of the deceased and the determination of the amount payable as estate duty. Where no account has been delivered as required by s. 53 or s. 56 or the person accountable fails to comply with the terms of the notice served under sub-s. (2) of s. 58, the Controller is required to make the assessments to the best of his judgment and determine the amount payable as estate duty. Section 62 provides for an appeal agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment. Under the I.T. Act, the corresponding provision for the making of a best judgment assessment in the absence of compliance by the asssesee to make the return or to respond to a notice is s. 144. In such a case, the ITO has power to make the assessment to the best of his judgment. Section 146 provides for an assessee making an application to the ITO within one month from the date of service of a notice of demand issued in consequence of the assessment. The assessee may show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from making the return required or that he did not receive the notice issued under the relevant provisions or that he had not a reasonable opportunity to comply or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessment." The legal position under the I.T. Act may be explained as follows : In a case, where the assessee is assessed under s. 144 he can both file an appeal against the order under s. 144 and also take up the matter before the ITO under s. 146. There is a right of appeal against the order under s. 146 also. In an appeal against the order under s. 146 the jurisdiction of the AAC will be limited to finding out whether the ITO had exercised his powers properly in making the best judgment assessment. In an appeal against an order under s. 144, apart from going into the question as to whether the assessment was properly made under s. 144, the right of appeal is as expansive as it is against an assessment under s. 143 : If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case, the Appellate Controller was justified in examining the valuation of the individual items of the includibility of any particular item of property, whether it was eligible to tax or not, taking into account the provisions of the Act ; and the exercise of the powers by the Appellate Controller in this case cannot be considered to be erroneous. Unfortunately, the respondent though served, was not represented. But Mr. J. Jayaraman, the learned counsel for the Controller of Estate Duty, brought to our notice all the aspects that could have been placed before us if the accountable person had appeared. The questions referred to us are accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. There will be no or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
