Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1129 1982 SLD 1129 (1982) 136 ITR 422
Gujarat High Court
29698
THAKKAR AND MANKAD, JJ.
K.C. Patel for the Applicant. N.U. Raval and R.P. Bhatt for the
Respondent.

Ramniklal J. Daftary

v.

Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 34(1)(c) of the estate duty act, 1953 - Aggregation of property - Deceased was coparcener in HUF - His interest in joint family property devolved on his heirs according to proviso to section 6 of the Hindu succession act - Whether interest so devolved was not coparcenary interest but deceased's defined share in joint family property in view of explanation 1 to section 6 - Held, no - Whether interest of lineal descendants of deceased in joint family property was includible in dutiable estate for ratb purposes under section 34(1)(c) - Held, on facts, yes Facts The deceased was a coparcener in the HUF consisting of himself and his son, who was the accountable person. The Tribunal, agreeing with the view taken by the lower authorities, held that on the death of the deceased who was a coparcener in the Mitakshara Hindu family, his interest ceased under section 7 and that the value of the interest of the lineal descendant of the deceased in the joint family property was includible in the dutiable estate for the rate purposes under section 34(1)(c). On reference, the accountable person argued that section 34(1)(c ) would be attracted only in a case where coparcenary interest of the deceased passed on death of the deceased under section 7. Since the interest of the deceased in the HUF devolved under the proviso to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, such interest was a property which passed on his death under section 5. It was not a case of cesser of interest of the deceased which would attract provisions of section 7. In view of Explanation 1 to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, it should be presumed that there was actual partition of the properties of the HUF immediately before the death of the deceased and what passed on the death of the deceased was his denned share and not the coparcenary interest in the property of the HUF. Since section 34(1)(c ) applied only when the deceased's coparcenary interest in the HUF property passed on his death, it was argued that on the above grounds the value of the share of the lineal descendant was not includible in the dutiable estate for the rate purposes under section 34(1)(c). Held Section 6 of the Hindu…
🔒
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