TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (8) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the estate left by the deceased, the petitioner, who was the execturix of the will left by Mr. Rodrigues, submitted a return. After scrutinising the return made and after examining the materials collected by the officers of the department appointed under section 41 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (to be referred to as "the Act" hereinafter), the Deputy Collector of Estate Duty, Coimbatore, valued the estate of the deceased at Rs. 5,52,824 and assessed estate duty at Rs. 60,696.69 nP. as per his order dated March 27, 1957. From the estate duty so assessed, the Deputy Controller deducted a sum of Rs. 11,188, the amount paid as probate duty. He further deducted a sum of Rs. 11,891.12 nP. which had been voluntarily paid. For the balance amount of Rs. 37,617.57 nP. a demand notice was served on the petitioner. The said amount was duly paid. On March 24, 1960, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Bangalore, purporting to act under section 62 of the old Act (corresponding to section 61 of the present Act) called upon the petitioner to show cause why the original order of assessment should not be rectified in certain respects. To that proposal, the petitioner agreed. Consequently, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of the deceased was the same as that which was placed by the District Judge. He, accordingly, enhanced the estate duty. The question for consideration is whether this enhancement is in accordance with law. Under section 36 of the Act, the duty of valuing the estate of a deceased person is left to the Controller. In discharging his duty, he may take the assistance of his subordinates as provided in section 41 and supplemented by the relevant rules. In other words, he is the authority to value the estate. From the narration of facts made earlier, it is clear that at the first instance the Controller did come to his own conclusion as regards the value of the estate. He has made the change, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition, not because he found any mistake apparent from the records of assessment, but because he thought that his valuation was an under-valuation in the light of the valuation made by the learned District Judge. Can this be justified under section 61 of the Act? Section 61 reads as follows: "At any time within five years from the date of any order passed by him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e apparent from the record of the assessment of the individual partner. In Lakshminarayana Chetty v. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Nellore [1956] 29 I.T.R. 419, in dealing with the question whether the record of the assessment of the firm may be regarded as the record of the assessment of the individual partner, Subba Rao C.J., speaking for the court, observed and, in our judgment, correctly: 'But it is said that section 35 of the Act even without the amendment would have enabled the income-tax authorities to reopen the assessment on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record. But from the record of final assessment, it is impossible to say that there was a mistake apparent from the record, for the assessing authority accepted a certain figure as representing the share of the assessees in the firm and made a final assessment. The mistake is not in the record but by a subsequent assessment of the firm it was discovered that the earlier assessment was wrong to the extent of the assessee's share in the firm. It is not a mistake apparent from the record but a mistake discovered from the disposal of another case. Section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of section 73A, require the person accountable to submit an account as required under section 53 and may proceed to assess or reassess such property as if the provisions of section 58 applied thereto." Section 73A lays down that: "73A. No proceedings for the levy of any estate duty under this Act shall be commenced-- (a) in the case of a first assessment, after the expiration of five years from the date of death of the deceased in respect of whose property estate duty became payable; and (b) in the case of a reassessment, after the expiration of three years from the date of assessment of such property to estate duty under this Act." In the present case, the department could take no assistance from section 59 in view of the bar of limitation provided under section 73A. As already stated, the case does not fall within the ambit of section 61. The learned counsel for the revenue contended that though ordinarily "record" would mean "record of assessment", in the case of estate duty, the record of the probate proceedings are also "record of assessment". For this contention he relied on section 50 of the Ac....