Controller of Estate Duty vs R.A. Maskati

T.D. Sugla, J.—In these cross references by the Department and the accountable person, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law u/s 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :

Questions at the instance of the accountable person :

(i) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its finding that the deceased had a beneficial interest in the properties of the wakf which was created through the trust on November 6, 1911, and which he determined by renunciation in terms of the deed dated October 18, 1971 ?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding further that such beneficial interest was liable to be included in the estate passing on the death ?"

Questions at the instance of the Department :

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting an additional ground of appeal filed by the accountable person claiming deduction on account of estate duty liability from the principal value of the estate of the deceased which was never raised by the accountable person before the Assistant Controller or the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings before them ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be deducted ?"

Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court''s judgment in the case of CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel [1990] 186 ITR 29, the second question referred to our court at the instance of the Department requires to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Counsel are also agreed that the first question of law referred to this court at the instance of the Commissioner is also covered by the very same decision of our court in favour of the accountable person. It is pointed out that, when a similar question came up before this court in Income Tax Reference No. 481 of 1976, Ahmedabad Electricity Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , our court, by order dated February 19, 1991, considered it appropriate to place the question before the Hon''ble Chief Justice for reference to a larger Bench. However, in view of our answer to the second question, in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, the first question so far as this case is concerned, has become only of academic interest and need not, therefore, be answered one way or the other.

As regards the question of law referred to our court at the instance of the accountable person, Shri Pandit, learned counsel, appears to say that he has instructions not to press his reference. In that view of the matter, the questions referred to us at the instance of the accountable person are not answered and the reference is returned unanswered.

There shall be no order as to costs.