TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (2) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....father, M. V. Narasimhacharlu, died on May 3, 1955, at Guntur leaving behind him his four undivided sons. His eldest son, M. S. Narayanacharlu, the petitioner herein, is the accountable person and he filed a return showing that the properties which the deceased possessed belonged to the Hindu undivided family and that he had only 1/5th share therein and as such the estate duty is leviable only on the 1/5th share of his deceased father. The Assistant Controller was not inclined to accept the statement that the properties left behind by Narasimhacharlu were the joint family properties of which Narasimhacharlu was the karta as, in his view, the properties constituted the deceased's separate and self-acquired properties by reason of his having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Controller without notice to the petitioner, with the result that the petitioner could not make his representation as to the payment of interest which, according to him, he was entitled to by virtue of sub-section (7) of section 64 of the Act. He then made an application inviting the attention of the Assistant Controller to rectify his order and direct payment of interest as the assessment was reduced as a result of the decision of the High Court on a reference made to it. The Assistant Controller, as already noticed, rejected this claim for interest, and hence this petition. Mr. A. Siva Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that sub-section (7) of section 64 is a beneficial provision introduced by Act XXXIII o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st as the Controller may allow unless the High Court, on intimation being given by the Controller within thirty days of the receipt of the result of such reference that he intends to ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, makes an order authorising the Controller to postpone payment of such refund until the disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court." This is not a case where the Controller prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court. The requirements of sub-section (7) of section 64 are these: (i) there must be a reference to the High Court under section 64(1) of the Act; and (ii) such reference should result in reduction of the assessment. If these two requirements are satisfied, it is perem....