Estate duty limitation and best judgment assessment upheld where notice and non-compliance triggered the statutory machinery.

Notice under section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, issued and served before expiry of five years from the death, was treated as commencement of proceedings, so the limitation bar under section 73A was satisfied in favour of the Revenue. An account filed in response to that notice was treated as an account under section 53(1); its filing beyond six months and in Form ED-5 did not prevent the assessment machinery from operating. Because a further notice under section 58(2) was not complied with, the best judgment assessment under section 58(4) was upheld against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings for levy of estate duty were commenced within the period prescribed under section 73A of the Estate Duty Act, 1953; (ii) Whether a best judgment assessment under section 58(4) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was invalid because the account was filed beyond six months and in an incomplete prescribed form.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings for levy of estate duty were commenced within the period prescribed under section 73A of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: A notice under section 55 was issued and served before expiry of five years from the death of the deceased. The Court treated the issuance and service of that notice as commencement of proceedings under the Act and held that the statutory bar under section 73A was satisfied.

Conclusion: The proceedings for levy of estate duty were commenced within limitation, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether a best judgment assessment under section 58(4) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was invalid because the account was filed beyond six months and in an incomplete prescribed form.

Analysis: An account filed in response to a notice under section 55 was treated as an account under section 53(1), so the fact that it was not filed within six months under section 53(3), or that it was in Form ED-5, did not prevent the assessment machinery under section 58 from operating. Since a notice under section 58(2) had been issued and the accountable person failed to comply with it, the case fell within section 58(4).

Conclusion: The best judgment assessment under section 58(4) was valid, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both reference questions were answered in favour of the Revenue, and the assessment proceedings and best judgment assessment were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, when issued and served within the limitation period, commences proceedings, and an account filed in response to such notice is treated as an account under section 53(1) so as to attract the assessment procedure under section 58, including best judgment assessment upon non-compliance with section 58(2).

---