TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (1) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not competent to dispose of the same and that it did not pass on her death ? " So far as the facts are concerned there is no dispute, though the learned counsel for the accountable person sought to contend that there was some controversy as to facts. The dispute relates to the estate of Savitri Devi. She died on the 17th of November, 1963. On the date of her death, there were two properties which stood in her name. These properties were evaluated at Rs. 1,63,200 by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The accountable person is the husband of the deceased, Shri M. L. Manchanda. The property is situate at Faridabad. Initially, it consisted of two plots, Nos. 5-C/1 and 5-C/2, measuring 800 square yards. These plots were allotted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e moneys were advanced by the bank. On the death of the wife, as already stated, the property which stood in her name and of which admittedly the real owner was the husband was sought to be included in the estate of the deceased for purposes of the levy of estate duty under section 5 of the Act. The plea of the husband that he was the real owner of the property and the wife was a mere benamidar and so the property could not be treated as that of the wife war, rejected on the basis of section 6 of the Act which is in the following terms : " Property which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose of shall be deemed to pass on his death." An appeal by the accountable person to the Zonal Appellate Controller of Es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question has to be settled on the language of section 6. It will be proper at this stage to refer to the contention of the learned counsel for the accountable person that the wife was not a benamidar at all and at no point of time any title in the property passed to the wife. Curiously enough, this was not a case which was ever set up before the Assistant Controller or the Zonal Appellate Controller or the Tribunal. The case proceeded on the short ground that the property had been acquired in the name of the wife but the consideration for the same had proceeded from the husband and thus the husband was the real owner of the property and the wife was merely a benamidar. We also proceed on this short basis. To say the least, the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has to examine the validity of the reasoning of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while deciding against the department and reversing, the decision of the Assistant Controller as well as of the Zonal Appellate Controller observed as follows : "The question that now arises for our consideration is whether the value of this property is liable to be included in the estate of the deceased simply because the allotments of the two vacant plots were made in the name of his wife. The question for our ultimate decision is whether the deceased can be said to have the power to dispose of this property during her lifetime simply because the property stood in her name. The learned advocate for the accountable person argued that it was impossible to con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not have passed any title to the purchaser. Even if she had executed any sale deed it would not have found the real owner of the property. It is in the circumstances impossible to hold that she had the power to dispose of this property during her lifetime. " As already observed, if the legal propositions that have been set out above and which are backed by the opinion of the Supreme Court are kept in view, the falsity of the reasoning of the Tribunal would become apparent. This brings us to the examination of the language of section 6. All that this section says is that the property which the deceased at the time of his death was competent to dispose of shall be deemed to pass on his death. Irrespective of the fact that the husband....