Appellate admission of a pure legal ground and binding High Court precedent justified deletion from the dutiable estate.

A pure legal ground arising from the existing record may be raised at the appellate stage where no fresh facts are needed and the opposite party has an opportunity to answer it, so the Tribunal allowed the additional ground challenging inclusion of the lineal descendants' share in the dutiable estate. A tribunal must follow the binding law declared by the jurisdictional High Court; where the High Court has held section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 unenforceable as violative of article 14, the Tribunal can direct deletion of the amount on that footing and need not re-examine constitutional validity independently. Both issues were answered for the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant should be permitted to raise the additional ground challenging the inclusion of the value of the lineal descendants' share in the dutiable estate; (ii) whether, if such ground is permitted, the Tribunal can direct deletion of the amount by following the Madras High Court's decision striking down section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant should be permitted to raise the additional ground challenging the inclusion of the value of the lineal descendants' share in the dutiable estate.

Analysis: The additional ground was based on a subsequent High Court decision and was a pure legal contention arising from the existing record. No fresh facts were required, and the appellant had not omitted the point by negligence or lapse. The point was only another aspect of the principal controversy regarding the correct computation of estate duty, and a party may be allowed to urge such a legal contention at the appellate stage when the opposite side has an opportunity to answer it.

Conclusion: The additional ground could be raised before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether, if such ground is permitted, the Tribunal can direct deletion of the amount by following the Madras High Court's decision striking down section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A tribunal is bound to respect the law declared by the jurisdictional High Court. When a provision has been declared ultra vires by a competent High Court, the Tribunal does not decide constitutional validity afresh by applying that ruling; it proceeds on the footing that the provision is not enforceable. Following the binding Madras High Court decision, the aggregation of the lineal descendants' share with that of the deceased was not justified, and there was no bar in adopting that view.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could direct deletion of the amount by following the High Court decision.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in favour of the appellant, and the matter was left for the original bench to pass the final order.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure legal ground arising from the existing record may be permitted at the appellate stage, and a tribunal must follow a binding jurisdictional High Court ruling that has declared the governing provision unenforceable.

---