1976 (8) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of Estate Duty Act: Property passing under settlement deed subject to duty

TA Devaki Ammal Versus Controller Of Estate-Duty, Madras

TA Devaki Ammal Versus Controller Of Estate-Duty, Madras - [1978] 111 ITR 403 Issues:- Interpretation of section 12(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953- Applicability of section 12 to the case- Assertion of property passing under the settlement deed- Lack of alternative contentions before the Tribunal- Scope of the question referred to the court- Valuation of the property for assessment purposesAnalysis:The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of the value of a life interest in a property under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The primary issue was whether the property passed under a settlement deed executed by the deceased and if section 12(1) of the Act applied to the case. The settlement deed reserved a life interest in the property for the deceased, and the court determined that the property did pass under the settlement, thereby making it liable to duty upon the death of the settlor. The court emphasized that section 12 is a special provision applicable when a settlor reserves a life interest, deeming the property to pass on the settlor's death. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the assessment based on section 12 was deemed correct by the court.Regarding alternative contentions raised by the assessee, the court highlighted that only the question of whether the property passed on the death of the settlor was argued before the Tribunal. The court noted that contentions related to section 7 of the Act or the valuation of the property were not raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, could not be considered as arising from the Tribunal's order. As such, the court focused solely on the issue of the property's exigibility to tax, as that was the only point argued and decided by the Tribunal. The court clarified that the question referred to them was limited to the question of exigibility to duty and did not encompass valuation issues.In conclusion, the court held that the question referred to them was answered in the affirmative, confirming the property's liability to duty. The court also addressed the contention that the question included valuation aspects but concluded that such a question did not arise from the Tribunal's order and, therefore, could not be addressed. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the department, emphasizing the limited scope of the question referred and the absence of alternative contentions during the Tribunal proceedings.