High Court rules in favor of accountable person in Estate Duty Act appeal, rejecting rectification order.

The High Court ruled in favor of the accountable person in an appeal under the Estate Duty Act regarding a rectification order reducing the deduction of court-fee, resulting in increased estate duty. The Court held that the rectification was not justified as no mistake was apparent from the record, allowing the accountable person to challenge the order and deny liability for estate duty. Additionally, the Court found that the accountable person was entitled to the deduction of the entire court-fee paid under section 50 of the Act, rejecting the revenue department's arguments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against rectification order under Estate Duty Act.
2. Deduction of court-fee under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with an appeal under the Estate Duty Act regarding the rectification order passed by the Assistant Controller. The deceased was a member of an undivided Hindu family, and the assessment to estate duty was completed, including a deduction of court-fee paid by the accountable person. However, a subsequent rectification order reduced the deduction, resulting in an increased estate duty. The Appellate Controller and Tribunal both ruled in favor of the accountable person, stating that the rectification was not justified as there was no mistake apparent from the record. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the appeal was competent under section 62(1)(b) of the Act, allowing the accountable person to challenge the rectification order denying liability for estate duty.

2. The second issue revolved around the deduction of court-fee under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act. The Tribunal and Appellate Controller found no mistake apparent on the face of the record to justify the rectification reducing the deduction. The High Court concurred, stating that the question of whether the entire court-fee or a proportionate part should be deducted was debatable. The Court highlighted that the accountable person was entitled to deduction of the entire court-fee paid under the law relating to court-fees, as per section 50 of the Act. The judgment favored the accountable person on both issues, answering question No. 1 in the affirmative and question No. 2 in the negative, against the revenue department.

---