Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the estate duty assessment could be sustained when the Assessing Officer ignored the binding Board instruction governing summary assessment and relied upon the valuation cell report instead of the returned principal value.
Analysis: The instruction applicable at the time required summary assessment under section 58(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, where the returned principal value did not exceed the prescribed limit, and contemplated completion under section 58(3) on the same basis where notice had already been issued under section 58(2). Departure from that course was permitted only in special cases where compliance would be highly detrimental to the Revenue, and then only with prior approval. In the present case, no such course was adopted. The assessment was completed by importing the valuation report, although the instruction required acceptance of the returned valuation unless the exception was validly invoked.
Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable to the extent it proceeded on the valuation cell report. The estate duty had to be levied on the valuation returned by the accountable person, and not on any other basis.
Ratio Decidendi: A binding administrative instruction governing estate duty assessments must be followed by the Assessing Officer unless the expressly provided exception is validly invoked; an assessment made in disregard of that instruction is vitiated.