9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith his three brothers from their father. Three of the brothers continued to reside in the property, whereas the deceased, who was ground engineer in the Air India, used to be at the place of his duty all above the world. When on leave, he would come and reside in the property at Baroda. In the assessment proceedings, the Asstt. CED overruled the plea on behalf of the accountable persons for relief under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act and included the entire value of the deceased's share in this building in the principal value of the estate. On an appeal by the accountable persons, the accountable persons' appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Controller on the plea that the accountable persons had failed to convince him as to how the house at B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must have been 'exclusively used by the deceased for his residence'. These words might, at first blush, appear to suggest that the benefit of the exemption would not be available unless the deceased resided in the house alone and that, therefore, the exemption would be lost if the deceased resided in the house even with, for example, his wife and children and/or his dependants. Apart from the fact that it was obviously not the intention of the legislature to so restrict the operation of the exemption, the language of the clause itself also cannot be so construed. The words 'exclusively used 'govern, not merely the words 'the deceased', but the entire expression by the deceased for his residence' and thus quantify the purpose for which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th his three brothers of the residential property at Baroda. He was occupying it alongwith his brothers whenever on leave or was otherwise in Baroda. The ld. counsel for the accountable persons has been able to support his arguments by two ld. commentators to the effect that what was necessary was that the property should be used exclusively for residence. It was not necessary that the property should been used for the exclusive residence of the deceased. If such a restrictive meaning was placed on the clauses even, if the deceased resided in the property with his wife and children, the accountable person would be denied the relief under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act. This certainly should not have been the intention of the legislature. In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
