TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (6) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he pawn broking business carried on by the deceased. The sum of Rs. 10,000 stood, therefore, as a debt due to the donee Sambandan. The Asstt. Controller disallowed this debt and made an addition of Rs. 10,000. In the assessment order it is stated that "the sum of Rs. 10,000 is treated as property passing under s. 46(2) of the Act." On appeal, the Appl. Controller deleted the sum of Rs. 10,000 on the ground that there is no need to made a double addition. It is against this order of the Appl. Controller that the present departmental appeal is laid before us. 2. The Appl. Controller and the Asstt. Controller referred to "passing" under s. 46(2) of the ED Act with regard to this sum of Rs. 10,000. The ground of appeal raised by the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the deceased; or (b) consideration not being such property as aforesaid, but given by any person who was at any time entitled to, or amongst whose resources there was at any time included, any property derived from the deceased: Provided that if, where the whole or part of the consideration given consisted of such consideration as is mentioned in cl. (b) of this sub-s., it is proved to the satisfaction of the controller that the value of the consideration give, or of that part thereof as the case may be, exceeded that which could have been rendered available by application of all the property derived from the deceased other than such (if any) of that property as is included in the consideration given or as to which the like facts are prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the earlier Tribunal: (i) reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers vs. Union of India (1970), 77 ITR 107 (SC) and (ii) the difference between the provisions of the English and the Indian Acts. Since there are material facts and circumstances not considered by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal, we have to look into the case afresh. 8. In the present case the assessee gifted a sum of Rs. 10,000 the same amount having been retained in the business the assessee became a debtor to the donee. The consideration therefore, for the debt outstanding is clearly the property derived from the deceased namely, the sum of Rs. 10,000 gifted. The provisions of s. 46(1)(a) clearly apply to the facts. The only question is whether the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Mining Co. Ltd. (1909), 5 T.C. 402). The Constitution does not contain any prohibition against double taxation." There can be double taxation where there is specific provision for the same. Even if the same property is under statutory provisions included twice, e.g. one passing and another as deemed to pass if the statute permits the double inclusion there is no prohibition against it. The position is much worse when the properties on which the criteria of inclusion are different but only the amounts are the same. s. 34(5) which runs as under: "34(5) For the purpose of this section, no property shall be aggregated more than once nor shall estate duty in respect thereof be levied more than once on the same death" provides against double....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he specialities of the English Law and on fundamental concepts and on broad general principles, decisions of Courts in England, can, therefore, be useful and of considerable guidance if utilised with due care and caution. The rule of construction relating to provisions of enactments in pari materia is one of great convenience and aid from outside may legitimately be derived when any doubtful point of interpretation of any provision has to be solved. But reference to it simply on the ground of similarity has to be avoided." The above is supported also by the decision in Mahendra Rambhai Patel vs. CED (1965) 55 ITR (ED) 1, p 15. But as stated in CIT Bengal vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) ITR 442 (PC) and in Kamcherla Keshav Rao vs. Controller ....