Govinda Bhat, C.J.
1. Under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following two question of law for the opinion of this court :
'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the value of cash gifts of Rs. 10,000 each made by the deceased in favour of the minor daughters, by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law
2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of Rs. 15,000 which was a deposit made by the done in the firm of Messrs. T. Govinda Rao and Sons as property belonging to the deceased by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ?'
2. One Govinda Rao, the deceased, who died on July 27, 1967, was a partner in a firm called 'M/s. T. Govinda Rao & Sons, Raichur'. The accountable person contested the inclusion of several items of assets before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Dharwar. We are not concerned with the several items except two items. One item which pertains to question No. 1 was a sum of Rs. 28,096 which was treated as property passing under section 10 of the Act. The relevant facts with regard to the said assets are as follows :
The deceased Govinda Rao gave cash gift of Rs. 10,000 each to his daughters, Kasibai and Sunitabai. Both of them were minors at the time of the gift and later Sunitabai became major on April 7, 1967, just a few months prior to the date of death of Govinda Rao. The amounts gifted were kept in banks in fixed deposits in the joint names of each of the minor daughters and the donor, payable to either or survivor. In the case of gift to Kasibai t he fixed deposit was in the names of Kasibai and Govinda Rao jointly. In the case of gift to Sunitabai the fixed deposits was in the names of Sunitabai and Govinda Rao. The fixed deposits with the accrued interest were together again and again deposited in the said joint names of the deceased and each of his daughters. The principle and interest accrued in eah case amounted to Rs. 14,048 and thus the total amounted to Rs. 28,096. The Assistant Controller and the appellate authorities have held that the said amount is properly passing under section 10 of the Act and, therefore, liable to be included in the principle value of the estate.
3. Sri Sarangan, learned counsel for the accountable person, submitted that the accrued interest of Rs. 4,048 in the case of each daughter could not have been included in the principle value of the estate. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be rejected as being without any substance, but so such question has been referred for the opinion of this court. The only question referred is whether the inclusion of the value of cash gift of Rs. 10,000 is valid in law. It is also to be noted that before the Tribunal no such contention was urgent on behalf of the accountable person. Therefore, the argument in the form it was urged before us cannot be permitted to be raised in this reference as it does not arise on the question referred.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the accountable person that Govinda Rao had acted as a guardian of his minor daughters in taking the deposits in the joint names. It is seen from the undisputed facts that the minor daughters. If the intention was to take the fixed deposits in the name of the minors, then it was not necessary to take the same in the joint names. Therefore, The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
5. Since the fixed deposits were taken in the joint names of the deceased along with his minor daughters, the view taken by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is right.
6. The second question relates to a gift of Rs. 15,000 made by the deceased to his son who was an adult, the said sum was deposited by the said son in the firm of which the deceased was a partner. In such a case the Supreme Court has held that the provision of section 10 is not attracted, vide Controller of Estate Duty v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder and Commissioners of Income-tax and Controller of Estate Duty v. N. R. Ramarathanam. The second question referred is concluded by the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court.
7. For the reasons stated above, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person.
8. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.