TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 969, before the Appellate Controller against the levy of penalty were competent in view of the proviso to section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act and in restoring the appeals back to the Appellate Controller for disposal according to law?" The estate duty payable on the estate of late Sri Kuppuswami Naicker, Madras, by the accountable person was determined at Rs. 68,833.29. The amount was due on or before June 10, 1968, and the same was not paid. After issuing a notice, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty by his order dated September 20, 1968, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to section 73(5) of the Act, directing that the same should be paid on or before October 20, 1968. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be withdrawn and you will be required to pay the arrears then due in one lump sum. Necessary interest as provided for in section 70 will be charged. The duty due on Rs. 1,35,914 is kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Controller." After this order, the accountable person gave a cheque for the first instalment on February 20, 1969, which was admittedly realised on March 6, 1969. It is thereafter by an order dated March 31, 1969, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty dismissed both the appeals on the ground that the requirement of the proviso to section 62(1) of the Act had not been satisfied. Against this order of the Appellate Controller, the accountable person preferred two appeals to the Income-tax Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of that amount of duty, two amounts of penalty of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000, respectively, were levied by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. But the order of the Assistant Controller himself dated January 30, 1969, which we have extracted in full clearly showed that the notice of demand for payment of duty of Rs. 68,833.29 was itself modified by reducing the duty itself to Rs. 41,650.49. As a matter of fact, that order further stated that since an appeal was pending with regard to assessment to duty on the sum of Rs. 1,35,914 which he was admitting, the duty referable thereto was kept in abeyance. The result is that the amount of duty itself had been modified by the very Assistant Controller who originally fixed the amount and, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis that the entire amount of Rs. 68,833.29 was due. Consequently, even this contention of the learned counsel for the revenue does not affect the inference we have drawn already. Therefore, even though on the date when the accountable person preferred the first appeal on November 29, 1968, what was in force was the original order demanding duty at Rs. 68,833.29, by the time the appeal came to be disposed of, that demand itself bad been modified by the Assistant Controller himself. Having regard to the fact that under section 62(2) of the Act, the Appellate Controller had the power to excuse the delay in the filing of an appeal, if on March 31, 1969, the Appellate Controller had entertained the appeal after excusing the delay, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
