TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (12) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said will and probate was taken. By the said will, with regard to items 4, 6 and 7 of the said will, a life estate was created in favour of his widow, Sudhir Bala Devi, and an absolute bequest thereafter to the petitioner and his brothers. Sudhir Bala thereafter died on the 5th day of September, 1960. The question is whether the petitioner is liable to pay estate duty with reference to the properties which vested absolutely in them by the will of Nagendra Nath Banerjee who died on 3rd November, 1930. It is urged by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner that no estate duty can be charged so far as the petitioner is concerned. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Estate Duty Act of 1953. Section 5 is as follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any interest being deemed to pass on the death of Sudhir Bala. According to Mr. Mukherjee, nothing passed and nothing could pass because of the death of Sudhir Bala and, therefore, nothing can be deemed to have passed on the death of Sudhir Bala. The result, therefore, is that no estate duty is payable with regard to this property. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to a decision in In re Thomas Townsend [1901] 2 K. B. 331 ; 1 E. D. C. 336. Mr. Mukherjee says that there is absolutely no doubt that title passed on the death of Nagendra Nath. At worst it may be said that only possession passed after the death of Sudhir Bala. Therefore, the property that passed may at worst be considered to be the value of possession apart from the value of title and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore asks us to construe section 5 as if the word "pass "includes the words "deemed to have passed ". According to Mr. Pal, section 5 would apply, whether the property was settled or not settled and it must be deemed to have passed and, therefore, it must be deemed to have passed when Sudhir Bala died. According to Mr. Pal, title to the property really passed on the death of Nagendra Nath and possession passed on the death of Sudhir Bala. Mr. Pal has further referred to section 40, which is as follows : "The value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cesser of an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased shall (a) if the interest extended to the whole income of the property, be the principal value of that property" Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cond passing of the property and he referred to the decisions aforesaid in support of his proposition. Mr. Mukherjee also refers to section 6 and says that at the time of the death of Sudhir Bala no property can be deemed to have passed as she was not competent to dispose of the property. The property, according to Mr. Mukherjee, passed to the present petitioner and his brothers on the death of Nagendra Nath alone and the death had taken place before the Estate Duty Act came into force. By the passing of the property on the death of Nagendra Nath no tax is payable. The whole reasoning under this argument is, "property passes "means "title to the property passed "and, according to the argument of Mr. Pal, "property passes "means "possessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubt in this case that the property changed hands. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the "property passed ". The aforesaid decision further proved that what the English Act contemplated was the "changing of hands "of property. It does not refer to devolution of interest. Mr. Mukherjee is perfectly right when he says that no title devolved to the petitioner on the death of Sudhir Bala. But the Act does not speak of devolution of title from one person to another. In fact, reference to persons is not to be found in the Act itself. What it refers to is the property which goes from one hand to another. The only question we are to decide is, whether the property went from one hand to the other. The aforesaid decisions are sufficient authori....