1987 (7) TMI 164 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Marriage Expenses Not Deductible from Estate Value

Smt. BN Geetha. Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty.

Smt. BN Geetha. Versus Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty. - ITD 026, 500, Issues Involved:1. Deduction of marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter of the deceased from the estate value.2. Applicability of Hindu law and specific legal precedents regarding maintenance and marriage expenses.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Marriage Expenses of the Unmarried Daughter of the Deceased from the Estate Value:The primary issue in this appeal was whether Rs. 50,000 claimed for the marriage expenses of the deceased's unmarried daughter could be deducted from the estate's value. The accountable person based the claim on the Madras High Court decision in CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma, which held that a girl born in a Hindu family is entitled to have her marriage expenses defrayed from the family properties. This decision emphasized that the liability of the family property for marriage expenses is independent of the father's personal obligation.However, the Assistant Controller and the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim, referencing decisions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, such as CED v. Smt. P. Leelavathamma and Smt. A. Suhasini v. CED. These decisions held that the maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried daughters are not deductible from the estate's principal value for estate duty purposes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's stance was that if the deceased's estate includes ancestral or coparcenary properties, the daughter's claim for marriage expenses does not qualify as a debt or encumbrance deductible under Section 44 of the Estate Duty Act.2. Applicability of Hindu Law and Specific Legal Precedents Regarding Maintenance and Marriage Expenses:The Tribunal discussed various legal precedents and interpretations of Hindu law. The accountable person cited the Tribunal's earlier decision in Pusarla Narasaraju v. ACED, which supported the deduction of marriage expenses from the estate value. However, the Assistant Controller relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decisions, which contradicted this view.The Tribunal noted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. P. Leelavathamma's case had clearly laid down that a Hindu wife is not a dependent within the meaning of Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as long as the husband is alive. Her claim as a dependent arises only after the husband's demise. Section 22 of the Act provides for the maintenance of dependents, stating that the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents from the estate inherited. However, if a dependent has obtained a share in the estate, they are not entitled to additional maintenance.The Tribunal also referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Smt. A. Suhasini's case, which concluded that maintenance and educational expenses of unmarried daughters are not deductible from the estate's value for estate duty purposes. This decision was not considered in the earlier Tribunal decision in Pusarla Narasaraju's case, leading to differing interpretations.The Tribunal further observed that the Madras High Court in G. Shenbagammal v. CED doubted the correctness of its earlier decision in Dr. B. Kamalamma's case, particularly regarding the impact of Section 22(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.Conclusion:Following the binding decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Tribunal held that the claim for Rs. 50,000 towards the marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter of the deceased could not be considered a legitimate deduction. It was neither a debt nor an encumbrance under Section 44 of the Estate Duty Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the accountable person was dismissed.