Controller of Estate Duty vs Mahendra Jaisinglal

T.D. Sugla, J.—The only question of law referred to this court for opinion by the Tribunal is :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any of the aforesaid amounts was liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased u/s 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?"

The deceased had gifted Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 50,000 to his wife, Subhadraben, and son, Pratap, respectively, on November 15, 1953. These amounts were initially deposited by the donees in their personal bank accounts. Later on, the donees withdrew the amounts from their banks and deposited them with the firm in which the deceased was a partner. It was the case of the Department that the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were attracted and, therefore, these two amounts were includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.

The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty confirmed the inclusion, whereas, observing that the facts and rival contentions were on all fours with those in the case of Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. C.R. Ramachandra Gounder, , the Tribunal held that these amounts were not includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased u/s 10 of the Act.

There being no dispute about the facts, the Supreme Court decision in Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. C.R. Ramachandra Gounder, , which has been recently followed by the Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Sanghi, Partner of Sanghi Brothers Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Rajasthan, , is squarely applicable. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in the negative and against the Revenue.

No order as to costs.