Tribunal affirms Controller's decision on relief amount under Estate Duty Act, emphasizing statutory provisions.

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming the Controller (Appeals) decision on the relief amount under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Tribunal held that the relief calculation is the responsibility of the Assistant Controller and is based on the specified scale in the section, not at the discretion of the Board. The judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of section 31 in determining relief for property passing in quick succession, highlighting the Assistant Controller's role in applying the relief amount according to statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment of estate duty and extent of relief admissible under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-C involves an appeal by the department concerning the assessment of estate duty and the relief admissible under section 31 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The deceased, Rameshwar, inherited property from his father, Balchand, who passed away on 10-4-1970. Rameshwar then passed away within nine months, leading to the property passing twice in quick succession. The Assistant Controller initially granted relief of Rs. 1,834 under section 31, but the Controller (Appeals) allowed relief of Rs. 21,682. The department appealed this decision, arguing that the relief amount should be determined by the Board and not the Assistant Controller.

The Tribunal accepted the Controller (Appeals) findings that the property passed twice in quick succession, making fifty percent relief admissible under section 31. The main contention was whether the relief amount is at the discretion of the Board or to be calculated by the Assistant Controller. The department argued for Board's discretion, while the counsel for the assessee contended that relief calculation is based on section 31 provisions and is the Assistant Controller's responsibility.

The Tribunal held that the Board's role is to determine if estate duty is payable on the property passing twice in quick succession. Once the Board communicates its satisfaction, the relief calculation process begins, to be done by the Assistant Controller in accordance with section 31 provisions. The relief amount is not discretionary but based on the specified scale in the section, depending on the time period between the deaths. Referring to a decision of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of section 31 and that the Assistant Controller must apply the relief at the time of raising the demand.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Controller (Appeals) decision on the relief amount. The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of section 31 in determining relief for property passing in quick succession, emphasizing the Assistant Controller's responsibility in calculating and applying the relief amount as per the statutory provisions.

---