Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (5) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed by the appellant against the refusal of the first respondent to rectify an assessment order and pass consequential directions. Shri Anantharamakrishnan, a reputed industrialist in Tamil Nadu, died intestate in Madras on April 18, 1964. He left behind his widow, Valli, his two sons, Sivasailam and Krishnamoorthy and two daughters, Kalyani and Seetha. Some time after his death, Sivasailam, as an accountable person, rendered the estate duty account. All the heirs, other than Shri Sivasailam, who were also the accountable persons wrote to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on December 15, 1964, that, as accountable persons, they agreed to abide by the accounts rendered by Sri Sivasailam and any explanation furnished by him with reg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll as to Sri Sivasailam as accountable persons. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty proceeded on the basis that Amalgamations was a "controlled company" and the deceased had control over its affairs, and, therefore, valuation of the shares held by the deceased in the company had to be made in the manner laid down in rule 15 framed by the Board under section 20(1)(e) of the Estate Duty Act. The principal value of the assets was determined at Rs. 2,12,29,998 and the duty was computed at Rs. 1,67,74,697.58. There was no appeal against the assessment by any of the accountable persons. Kalyani Sundaram, one of the daughters of the deceased and the appellant before us, became entitled on the death of Anantharamakrishnan to fifth share in hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , and, therefore, a rectification order should be made indicating the exact amount included under section 17(1) of the Act as the property passing on the death of the deceased. He required this information, he said, to enable him to work out the amount which his principal had to pay to Amalgamations by way of reimbursement of the duty. If the apportionment of the duty had been effected by the order itself, he said, the need for rectification would not have arisen. Section 61 empowers the Controller "to rectify any mistake apparent from the record" at any time within five years from the date of the order passed by him. On January 25, 1975, the Assistant Controller passed an order declaring that he was unable to discover any mistake which c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in the property passing on his death if the deceased made a transfer of that property to the controlled company and benefit accrued to the deceased in the three years ending on his death. The slice of the assets of the controlled company does not come to any heir ; therefore, no heir is called upon to pay the amount of estate duty attributable to the inclusion of that slice in the chargeable estate. By section 19, the controlled company itself is liable to pay the corresponding amount of estate duty. In the present case, however, learned counsel urges, no slice of the assets of Amalgamations has been included in the estate of the deceased by the assessing authority as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased and, therefore, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant filed the application for rectification on January 2, 1975. It was contended by learned counsel for the private respondents that the appellant enjoyed no locus standing order to maintain the application under section 61 and these appeals thereafter, but we do not propose to enter into this question. Further, it appears that this litigation is woven around a private dispute among the family members. That is hardly any justification for invoking section 61 of the Act. We have carefully perused the reasons given individually by the two learned judges of the High Court and we are in complete agreement with them that there is no mistake apparent on the record. In support of the contention that there was a mistake apparent on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates