Jurisdiction under the Estate Duty Act could not arise from a Board notification, and a pure legal objection was allowed at appeal.

The Estate Duty Act, 1953 reserved appointment of Controllers of Estate Duty to the Central Government, so a Board notification assigning functions to Income-tax Officers could not itself create the statutory authority to assess. Rule 5 of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 could operate only for a validly appointed Controller, and section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not cure the absence of an underlying appointment power. The assessments were therefore without authority. The Bombay HC also accepted that the accountable person could raise the legality of the assessment at the second appellate stage, because the objection was a pure question of law needing no further factual inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Officer, Trust-cum-Estate Duty Circle, was competent to frame assessments under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and whether the assessments made by him were illegal, non est and void. (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in permitting the accountable person to raise the legality of the assessment at the second appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the Income-tax Officer, Trust-cum-Estate Duty Circle, was competent to frame assessments under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and whether the assessments made by him were illegal, non est and void.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 4 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 shows that the power to appoint Controllers of Estate Duty vests in the Central Government, while the Board is only empowered to assign functions to persons who already answer the description of Controller. Rule 5 of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 operates only in relation to a Controller and cannot validate an appointment which the statute does not authorise the Board to make. Section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not assist, because it presupposes a valid appointment-making power in the first place. The notification conferring functions on Income-tax Officers, Trust Circle, therefore could not cure the absence of statutory authority to appoint them as Controllers.

Conclusion: The assessments were held to be without authority and the answer was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in permitting the accountable person to raise the legality of the assessment at the second appellate stage.

Analysis: The objection raised was treated by the Tribunal as a pure question of law not requiring further factual verification. No error in that approach was shown, and the challenge to the grant of leave was not substantiated by any demonstrated factual prejudice or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in permitting the issue to be raised, and the answer was against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the accountable persons on the jurisdictional validity of the assessments and on the Tribunal's permission to raise the legal objection, with all answered questions going against the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute itself reserves appointment of the assessing authority to the Central Government, an administrative notification by the Board cannot confer that authority, and a pure question of law affecting jurisdiction may be permitted to be raised at the appellate stage.

---