TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1982 - Judge(s) : A. N. SEN., R. S. PATHAK., V. D. TULZAPURKAR The judgment of the court was delivered by AMARENDRA NATH SEN J.-These two appeals by certificate granted by the Patna High Court are against the common judgment and order of the High Court passed on August 12,1969. The common judgment was passed by the High Court in a reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act (being Tax Case No. 73 of 1966) and also in the writ petition filed by the assessee in the High Court (bearing No. C.W.J.C. No. 104 of 1967). The question which was referred to the High Court in the reference under s. 64(1) of the E D. Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties have rightly been assessed to estate duty under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?" In the writ petition, the validity of the imposition of penalty was challenged. The principal question which falls for consideration in these two appeals is whether on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri, any estate duty could be levied on the properties comprised in the estate known as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the accountable person filed a petition before the Board for referring a number of questions of law for the opinion of the High Court. None of the questions suggested by the accountable person were accepted by the Board as legitimate. The Board, however, referred the question, which we have earlier set out, to the High Court. The High Court, on a consideration of the various arguments advanced and the materials on record, held that the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math were trust properties and, no estate duty could be levied on the said properties on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri. The correctness of the said decision of the High Court in the tax reference has been challenged by the Controller. In view of the decision of the High Court in the tax reference, the writ petition was also allowed by the High Court and the order imposing the penalty was also quashed. Hence, the other appeal has been filed and the fate of this appeal from the order in the writ petition will naturally depend on the result of the appeal from the judgment in the tax appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has very properly addressed his arguments in the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the properties were not the personal properties of the deceased Mahant and were trust properties, particularly in the absence of any specific question raised challenging the validity of the finding. He has argued that, in view of the nature of the question referred to the High Court, the High Court was not competent to go into the findings of fact and could not interfere with the same. It is his argument that when the question referred speaks of " facts and circumstances of the case ", it means the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal and not facts that may be found by the High Court on a reappraisal of the evidence. In support of this argument Mr. Manchanda has relied on the decisions of this court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 547 and also in the case of CIT v. Manna Ramji and Co. [1972] 86 ITR 29. We are not impressed by this argument of the learned counsel. It is true that in the absence of a specific question raised with regard to the correctness of any finding of fact, the High Court in a reference is not to interfere with the finding of fact by the Tribunal and the High Court has to proceed to answer the question on the facts found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his section, property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the decease's eat to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cesser of such interest, including, in particular, a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam or Aliyasantana law. (2) If a member of a Hindu coparcenary governed by the Mitakshara School of Law dies, then the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply with respect to the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property only (a) if the deceased had completed his eighteenth year at the time of his death, or (b) where he had not completed his eighteenth year at the time of his death, if his father or other male ascendant in the male line was not coparcener of the same family at the time of his death. Explanation.-Where the deceased was also a member of a sub-coparcenary (within the coparcenary) possessing separate property of its own, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect separately in respect of the coparcenary and the sub-coparcenary. (3) If a member of any tarwad or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
