Law: Estate Duty Act, 1950

Section: 38

Estate Duty Act (X of 1950) S. 38-Controller of Estate Duty holding "accountable persons" to be mere "benamidars" of the property of deceased - Onus lies on Controller of Estate Duty to show that ostensible owners of property were not real owners - Amount standing to credit of accountable persons in firms of which they were ostensible owners and with which deceased had no apparent connection-Held, Controller of Estate Duty (in absence of any evidence or material to support his conclusion) had erred in drawing inference that they were merely "benamidars". K. B. Sheikh Muhammad Nagi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1945) 13 I T R 452; Ramknikar Banerji v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bilhar & Orissa (1936) 4 1 T R 108 and Sovaram Jokhiram v. The Commissioner qflacome-tax, Bihar & Orissa (1944) 12 I T R 110 ref. Date of hearing: 25th January 1974.                                                                                                                       JUDGMENT NOORUL ARFIN, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following question to the High Court under section 59-A of the Estate Duty Act, 1950: Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case there was any material or evidence on the record to prove that the sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 (Rupees three lacs) standing to the credit of (1) Ayoob Haji Omer and (2) Abdul Karim Haji Omer from before the death of Haji Omer in the firm of Ayoob Bros. and Rs. 50,000.00 in the names of Tar Muhammad Haji Omer and Salim Haji Omer each in Modern Textile Mills, belonged to deceased Haji Omer at the time of his death? 2. The question stated to the High Court arises on these facts: One Haji Kassim was partner in the firm known as "Haji Omer & Sons" along with his two sons and three other persons. Haji Kassim died on the 21st of September 1950. His eldest…