Court excludes deceased's share in goodwill and gifted amounts from dutiable estate. Controller to pay costs.

The court ruled in favor of the accountable person in a case involving the inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill of a firm and amounts gifted to relatives in the dutiable estate. The court held that the deceased partner had no right to the goodwill as per the partnership agreement, thus excluding it from the estate value. Additionally, the court determined that the gifted amounts were not subject to estate duty as the deceased did not retain any benefit from the gifts. Consequently, both issues were decided in favor of the accountable person, and the Controller was directed to pay the costs of the references.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firm in the principal value of the estate.
2. Inclusion of amounts gifted by the deceased to relatives in the principal value of the dutiable estate under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firm:
The primary question was whether the sum of Rs. 56,500, representing the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firm M/s. Harjivandas Hathibhai, should be included in the principal value of the estate. The partnership deed contained a specific clause (Clause 8) stating that upon the retirement, departure, or death of a partner, no goodwill would be considered, and nothing would be payable towards goodwill to such partner.

The court referred to the precedent set in Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED [1975] 100 ITR 297 (Guj), where it was held that if the partnership deed explicitly states that the deceased partner has no right to the goodwill, then the goodwill does not pass to the legal representatives and is not liable to estate duty under Section 7. Despite contrary views from the Punjab and Madras High Courts, the Gujarat High Court upheld its previous decision, emphasizing that no property "passes" if the deceased's rights cease to exist upon death, as per the specific partnership agreement.

Therefore, the court answered Question No. 1 in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the accountable person and against the revenue, stating that the sum of Rs. 56,500 was not liable to be included in the dutiable estate.

2. Inclusion of amounts gifted by the deceased to relatives:
The second issue was whether the amounts totaling Rs. 87,000, gifted by the deceased to his relatives, should be included in the principal value of the dutiable estate under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. Section 10 stipulates that property taken under any gift is deemed to pass on the donor's death if the donee did not assume bona fide possession and enjoyment of it to the exclusion of the donor.

The court examined several precedents, including Smt. Shantaben S. Kapadia v. CED [1969] 73 ITR 171 (Guj) and CED v. Chandravadan Amratlal Bhatt [1969] 73 ITR 416 (Guj), which held that if the gifted amounts remained invested in the firm where the deceased was a partner, the donor was not entirely excluded from the property, thus attracting Section 10.

However, subsequent Supreme Court decisions in CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder [1973] 88 ITR 448 (SC), CED v. R. V. Viswanathan [1976] 105 ITR 653 (SC), and CED v. Kamalavati [1979] 120 ITR 456 (SC) clarified that if the gift was made without reservation and the donor's continued benefit was not referable to the gift, Section 10 would not apply. The Supreme Court emphasized that the donor's benefit must be directly linked to the gift for Section 10 to be applicable.

Applying these principles, the court found that the mere fact that the gifted amounts were invested in the firm where the deceased was a partner did not imply that the deceased retained a benefit from the gift. Therefore, the court ruled that the amount of Rs. 87,000 should not be included in the principal value of the estate under Section 10.

Thus, Question No. 2 was answered in the negative, in favor of the accountable person and against the revenue.

Conclusion:
The court concluded by answering:
- Question No. 1 in the affirmative, favoring the accountable person and against the revenue.
- Question No. 2 in the negative, favoring the accountable person and against the revenue.

The Controller was ordered to pay the costs of these two references to the accountable person.

---