2001 (3) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., on March 31, 1973, amounted to a disposition falling within the mischief of section 27 read with section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, so as to justify the inclusion of the said property in the net principal value of the deceased for purposes of the estate duty assessment?" The background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows: A proceeding under the Act was initiated on the basis of a statement of estate delivered by Satyajit (hereinafter referred to as "accountable person") on April 10, 1975, in respect of the late Shri Durga Dass (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), who breathed his last on May 17, 1974. During the assessment proceedings the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (hereinafter referred to as "the Assistant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o two decisions of the apex court in CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 and CED v. N. Shankaran [1992] 193 ITR 28. It was his stand that the expression "disposition" has a wide ambit and the factual position as indicated brooks within its scope, throwing of the self-acquired property into the common hotchpot by blending as well as partition subsequently. So far as the question of disposition is concerned, it is to be noted that in N. Shankaran's case [1992] 193 ITR 28, the apex court held that the act of a member of a Hindu undivided family by which he impresses his individual property with the character of joint family property or throws it into the hotchpot of the joint family or blends it with the joint family property is not....