Estate duty limitation and remand: timely valuation requisition starts proceedings, and hearing another accountable person does not trigger time bar.

Under the Estate Duty Act, a requisition made for valuation particulars within five years of death amounts to commencement of levy and assessment proceedings, so the limitation bar in section 73A does not apply. The assessment is treated as a single proceeding, and once it begins in time against one accountable person, the authority may require participation of another accountable person, including the karta of an HUF, without starting a time-barred proceeding. The remand for a fresh assessment after hearing the karta was therefore valid, and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether estate duty proceedings were barred by limitation under section 73A of the Estate Duty Act; (ii) Whether the Appellate Controller could direct a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the karta of the HUF.

Issue (i): Whether estate duty proceedings were barred by limitation under section 73A of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: The limitation bar applies only where proceedings for levy of estate duty have not commenced within five years from the date of death. A requisition under section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, made for the purpose of obtaining particulars for valuation of the estate, is a step in the process of levy and assessment. Since such a requisition had been made within five years of the death, proceedings for levy of estate duty had already commenced within time.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not time-barred and the answer is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Controller could direct a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the karta of the HUF.

Analysis: Estate duty assessment is a single proceeding and the Act does not require separate proceedings against each accountable person. Once proceedings commence within limitation against one accountable person, the bar in section 73A does not prevent the authority from requiring participation of other accountable persons during the course of the same proceeding. The karta of the HUF was an accountable person within the meaning of the Act, and the remand for giving him an opportunity of hearing did not amount to the initiation of a time-barred proceeding. The assessment could proceed on the basis that liability may extend to other accountable persons within the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The remand directing a fresh assessment after hearing the karta was valid and the answer is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in favour of the department, and the challenge to limitation as well as the objection to remand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For estate duty, commencement of proceedings within the limitation period by a requisition for valuation under the Act is sufficient, and the subsequent participation or hearing of another accountable person in the same assessment does not attract the limitation bar.

---