Skip to content


Smt. Indramanidevi Parasrampuria Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in[1983]141ITR593(SC)
ActsEstate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 64(1)
AppellantSmt. Indramanidevi Parasrampuria
RespondentAssistant Controller of Estate Duty
Excerpt:
.....person at whose instance this reference was made is not interested in pursuing this reference and getting the opinion of this court on the questions as have been referred to by the tribunal......for its opinion : 1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the property left by shri sitaram falling in the hands of shri satyanaiayan was an absolute property ?2. whether the tribunal was right in holding that the grandsons of the deceased, shri sitaram, did not have any right by birth in the property left by him (deceased shri sitaram) ?3. whether the tribunal was right in holding that section 6 of the hindu succession act is not applicable ?4. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the property left by shri sitaram was not an ancestral property in the hands of the son, satyanarayan 2. in this case shri sachdeva had appeared for the applicant on june 29, 1981. on.....
Judgment:

S.S. Sharma J.

1. On an application of the accountable person, the Income-tax Appellate. Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, had referred to this Court the following questions of law for its opinion :

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property left by Shri Sitaram falling in the hands of Shri Satyanaiayan was an absolute property ?

2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the grandsons of the deceased, Shri Sitaram, did not have any right by birth in the property left by him (deceased Shri Sitaram) ?

3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable ?

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property left by Shri Sitaram was not an ancestral property in the hands of the son, Satyanarayan

2. In this case Shri Sachdeva had appeared for the applicant on June 29, 1981. On October 15, 1981, and October 17, 1981, no one was present for the applicant. On October 23, 1981, Shri Bagadia, advocate, had stated that on going through the record, he felt that he could not appear for the assessee. His undertaking that he would ' inform the applicant-assessee so that she could in the meantime make alternative arrangement' was recorded. The case was thus ordered to be listed in the first' week of November. The record indicates that S.P.C. had been issued to the applicant.

3. When the case was taken up today, neither the applicant nor her counsel was present. Shri Mukati, counsel for the department; was however, present.

4. The circumstances clearly indicate, that the accountable person at whose instance this reference was made is not interested in pursuing this reference and getting the opinion of this Court on the questions as have been referred to by the Tribunal. Following the course as was adopted by this Court in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal v. CWT : [1970]76ITR615(MP) , wherein the cases of the other High Courts have been dealt with, we would decline to answer the questions referred in this case.

5. Accordingly, we decline to answer the questions referred to us for our opinion. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs of this reference.


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