| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1978 SLG 318 1978 SLD 318 (1978) 114 ITR 899 |
Kerala High Court
WRIT APPEAL No. 255 OF 1974 (O.P. No. 650 OF 1973), 6-Sep-77
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND K.K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
P.C.B. Menon, V.P. Mohan Kumar and Mrs. Sumathy Dandapani for the Appellant. P.A. Francis and P.K. Ravindranatha Menon for the
Respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 255 OF 1974 (O.P. No. 650 OF 1973), 6-Sep-77
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND K.K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
P.C.B. Menon, V.P. Mohan Kumar and Mrs. Sumathy Dandapani for the Appellant. P.A. Francis and P.K. Ravindranatha Menon for the
Respondent.
Keerampalli Sivasankaran
v.
Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
Section 73 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Recovery of duty and penalties - Whether liability of every accountable person is personal liability, therefore, for recovery of estate duty department is entitled to proceed not only against assets inherited by accountable person but also against other properties of accountable person - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner had challenged the proceedings taken against him by the Assistant Controller for recovery of the amount of estate duty due jointly and severally by the petitioner and other members of his branch as accountable persons in respect of the estate left by the deceased by the process of attachment of an amount lying in the court deposit to the credit of a decree obtained by the petitioner against some other persons. The main contention taken in the writ petition was that for the purpose of realisation of the estate duty it was not open to the estate duty officer or to the revenue recovery officer acting on the strength of a certificate issued to him by the former to proceed against estate belonging to the accountable persons other than the properties and assets which they had come by as a result of devolution of interest on the death of the deceased. On this basis, it was urged that since the amount in court deposit was not an asset obtained by the petitioner and his group as part of the estate of the deceased, it was not liable to be proceeded against by way of attachment. This contention was rejected by the Single Judge and consequently the writ petition was dismissed. On appeal : HELD In view of the decision of the same High Court in P. Mohammed Ali v. Asstt. CED[1978] 114 ITR 892 , wherein it was held that under the Estate Duty Act, the liability of every accountable person is a personal liability and not one payable only out of the estate of the deceased even though it is limited in its extent to the value of the estate actually inherited from the deceased, it was to be held that the contention put forward by the appellant that for realisation of the estate duty the department wa s entitled to proceed only against the assets that have actually come into the hands of the accountable persons as part of the…
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