Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 3164 1987 SLD 3164 (1987) 166 ITR 515
Rajasthan High Court

S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAROOQ HASAN, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Smt. Mira Roy

v.

Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 64, read with section 34(3), of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Reference - General principle - Applicant and her son, being designated beneficiaries, received insurance amount on her husband's death - Assistant Controller included impugned amount in principal value of deceased's estate - On appeal, Appellate Controller accepted applicant's claim for making separate assessment under section 34(3) in respect of impugned amount - Tribunal held that no finding had been recorded by Appellate Controller as to whether deceased had any interest in said policy amount and in absence of such a finding, decision on that issue as to whether present case was covered by section 34(3) was not possible - However, in operative part of its , Tribunal set aside order of Appellate Controller and restored that of Assistant Controller - Whether reference to High Court was to be returned unanswered, since it could be decided only after recording of aforementioned finding - Held, on facts, yes Facts On the death of her husband, the applicant and her son, being designated beneficiaries, received certain amount under the Group Insurance Plan of the UNO in equal shares. The Assistant Controller included the said amount in the principal value of the deceased's estate passing on his death, after rejecting the applicant's claim for making a separate assessment under section 34(3). On appeal, the Appellate Controller reversed the Assistant Controller's orders while accepting the applicant's submission. On the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal held that in order to determine the question as to whether the case was covered by section 34(3), a finding was to be recorded as to whether the property in the policy was one in which the deceased had no interest. Since the Appellate Controller had not recorded any finding on that issue, the Tribunal directed that the determination of that issue should be restored to the Appellate Controller's file for recording a clear finding. However, in operative part of its , the Tribunal did not give any such direction, while setting aside the Appellate Controller's order and restored the order of the Assistant Controller. On reference: Held In the circumstances…
🔒
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