Skip to content


Controller of Estate Duty Vs. B.K. Tiwari (Accountable Person) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 26 of 1981
Judge
Reported in(1983)37CTR(MP)61; [1983]142ITR776(MP)
ActsEstate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 6 and 7
AppellantController of Estate Duty
RespondentB.K. Tiwari (Accountable Person)
Appellant AdvocateR.C. Mukati, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.K. Chitale, Adv.
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....of the tribunal, the property in question shall be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased as provided by section 7 of the act. in this view of the matter, it must be held that the tribunal was not justified in holding that the value of the two properties could not be charged to estate duty. our answer to question no. 1, therefore, is in the negative and in favour of the revenue. in view of our answer to the first question, question no. 2 does not arise. we, therefore, decline to answer the second question,the reference is answered accordingly.4. parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
Judgment:

Sohani, J.

1. By this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :

'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that even if the two properties belonged to the HUF the value of the properties could not be charged to estate duty ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased who was the karta of the HUF had no power of disposition over the properties in question of the HUF standing in the names of Smt. Savitri Devi and Basantkumar ?'

2. The facts giving rise to this reference have been elaborately stated in the order passed by this court on I9th January, 1979, in CED v. B. K. Tiwari : [1981]130ITR515(MP) , whereby the Tribunal was directed to submit an additional statement of case giving its finding regarding theacquisition of property in question. The Tribunal has now submitted the supplementary statement of case. The finding of the Tribunal is that the properties in question are the properties of the HUF of which the deceased, R. B. Tiwari was the karta.

3. In view of the finding of the Tribunal, the property in question shall be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased as provided by Section 7 of the Act. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the value of the two properties could not be charged to estate duty. Our answer to question No. 1, therefore, is in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our answer to the first question, question No. 2 does not arise. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question,

The reference is answered accordingly.

4. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //