Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 1158 1983 SLD 1158 (1983) 143 ITR 103
Calcutta High Court
MATTER No. 557 OF 1966
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, JJ.
N. Mukherji and A.S.C. Chari for the Petitioner. B.L. Pal and Ajit Sengupta for the
Respondent.

Rupchand Mullick

v.

Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 36 of the Estate Duty Act 1953 - Value chargeable - Principal value how to be estimated - Deceased owned shares in private company - Certain amounts were due to him from another company and, he also owned certain amount to bank as guarantor for which he had mortgaged certain property as additional security - Shares owned by deceased were valued on basis of valuation made in case of another co-sharer who died few days after death of deceased - Accountable persons had knowledge of said piece of evidence - However, they chose not to adduce any evidence either contrary of or to rebut that piece of evidence on record - Whether in absence of any material to rebut said evidence, valuation was properly made - Held, yes - Whether in view of fact that while valuing debt due to deceased from private company, Board had neither taken into consideration assets and financial position of company nor fact that Deputy Controller had valued shares of said company as 'nil', observation of Board that there was no likelihood of realisation of debt was not in accordance with law - Held, yes - whether as regards debt incurred by deceased as guarantor, in view of fact that it was secured by deceased's property which was subject to mortgage, debt so incurred was to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes FACTS The deceased had certain shares in private company. There was also debt due to the deceased from another private company. Both these items were shown by the accountable person as of nil value. The Dy. Controller accepted the valuation of shares but determined the value of the debt. The accountable person claimed deduction of certain debt as guarantor. The deceased had guaranteed the repayment of the said debt by deposit of title deeds of premises as additional security for due repayment thereof. No portion of this debt was allowed as deduction by the Dy. Controller. On appeal, the Board valued the shares held by the deceased taking into account the valuation made in the case of another co-sharer who died few days after the death of the deceased. While valuing the debt due to the deceased, the Board took into account the subsequent events that there was no likelihood of…
🔒
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