1975 (12) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes notice, upholds assessment under Hindu Succession Act. Judgment deems prior case incorrect.

Pritam Singh Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate-Duty, Patiala

The court accepted the writ petition, quashed the notice dated October 8, 1974, and upheld the assessment order from May 1, 1973. It determined that the ... Assessment Notice, Estate Duty Act, Hindu Succession Act, Reassessment Notice, The High Court Issues Involved:1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act.2. Applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to Sikh Jats.3. Validity of the assessment order dated May 1, 1973.4. Interpretation of 'information' under Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Notice Issued Under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act:The petitioner challenged the notice dated October 8, 1974, issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, alleging that the property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment. The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal, invalid, and void. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act, including Sections 2(15), 5(1), 6, 7, 39, and 59. It was found that the notice was vague and indefinite, lacking specific information regarding how the property was under-assessed or escaped assessment. The court concluded that the notice did not meet the requirements of Section 59 and was therefore invalid.2. Applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to Sikh Jats:The petitioner contended that the deceased, Gurbachan Singh, and his family were governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondent argued that Sikh Jats were governed by customary law. The court reviewed the legal position prior to and after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. It was held that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act abrogated all rules of customary law in matters of succession for Hindus, including Sikh Jats. Therefore, the deceased and his family were governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not by customary law.3. Validity of the Assessment Order Dated May 1, 1973:The petitioner had filed a return on March 13, 1972, claiming that the property was joint Hindu family property, and the deceased had a one-third share. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty accepted these facts and assessed the estate duty accordingly. The court found that the assessment order dated May 1, 1973, was made in accordance with the provisions of the Estate Duty Act and was valid and legal. The impugned notice, which sought to reassess the property, was therefore quashed.4. Interpretation of 'Information' Under Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act:The respondent argued that the judgment in Controller of Estate Duty v. Harbans Singh constituted 'information' for the purposes of Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act. The petitioner contended that this judgment did not lay down the correct law and could not be considered as 'information.' The court examined the legal definition of 'information' and held that it includes information as to the true and correct state of the law, including relevant judicial decisions. However, the court found that the judgment in Harbans Singh's case did not constitute correct law and therefore could not be considered as 'information' under Section 59(b). Consequently, the notice issued on the basis of this judgment was invalid.Conclusion:The court accepted the writ petition, quashed the impugned notice dated October 8, 1974, and upheld the assessment order dated May 1, 1973. The court held that the deceased and his family were governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not by customary law. The judgment in Harbans Singh's case was found to be incorrect and did not constitute 'information' under Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act.