Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 312 1976 SLD 312 (1976) 103 ITR 652
Allahabad High Court
ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE No. 233 OF 1972, FEBRUARY 20, 1975
K.B. ASTHANA, C.J. AND SATISH CHANDRA, J.
K.K. Bhattacharya and J.C. Bharadwaj for the Accountable Person. Dr. R.R. Misra for the Controller

Smt. Sarla Devi

v.

Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Reassessment - Whether if some material is obtained by research into law which research was not done earlier or which material was not in fact obtained earlier, such material would be 'information' - Held, yes - At time of original assessment, Assistant Controller took deceased's share in undivided coparcenary properties at one-fourth, accepting accountable person's plea that deceased was not sole coparcener of HUF as no complete partition of assets of bigger Hindu undivided family had been effected till date of his death and joint properties of bigger Hindu undivided family continued to be joint - Subsequently, on scrutiny, Assistant Controller found that for purposes of determining share of deceased in coparcenary properties a partition was deemed to have been taken place on date of his death for estate duty purposes and that, on such partition, wife of deceased would not have got share because deceased had no son and as such deceased would be entitled to one half share - He, therefore, initiated re-assessment proceedings under section 59(b) and included one-half share for assessment purposes - Whether precise aspect of law on which proceedings were sought to be reopened was neither canvassed nor was any opinion held or expressed by Assistant Controller at time of original assessment and he came to know of that aspect because of research made subsequent to original assessment and therefore, Assistant Controller had jurisdiction to reassess under section 59(b) and reassessment proceedings were valid - Held, yes FACTS At the time of original assessment, the Assistant Controller took the view that the deceased was the sole surviving coparcener of his branch of the Hindu undivided family. He called upon the accountable person to show cause why the deceased's share in the undivided coparcenary properties be not taken at one-half as against one-fourth declared by the accountable person. The accountable person filed a reply pointing out that the deceased was not sole coparcener of HUF as no complete partition of assets of bigger Hindu undivided family had been effected till date of his death and joint properties of bigger…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492