TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scribed period of limitation. The petitioner is the accountable person in respect of the estate of the late Repaka Viswanatharao, who passed away on February 9, 1978. She filed the return of the estate before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, valuing the estate at Rs. 2,11,652. The first respondent-Assessing Officer determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 3,70,140 while framing the assessment under section 58(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (for short "the Act"), dated December 6, 1978, and levied the duty of Rs. 39,001, which was paid by the petitioner. The first respondent later initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 59 of the Act dated August 17, 1982, calling upon the petitioner to del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r made a representation to the Controller of Estate Duty complaining of her grievance regarding the framing of reassessment beyond the period of limitation and non-disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under section 61 and also bringing to the notice of the Commissioner about the proposal to levy penalty. The said petition was presented before the Commissioner on November 4, 1989. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter the first respondent did not take any further steps with reference to the proposed action to levy penalty. It is further stated that the petitioner has stated in the representation dated November 4, 1989, to the first respondent, about the pendency of the rectification petition filed under section 61 aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of limitation and therefore immediately thereafter filed an application under section 61 of the Act on February 17, 1983, for rectification of the assessment so as to cancel the assessment and dropping of the reassessment proceedings. But no action was taken, though the first respondent was under an obligation to dispose of the said application. Therefore, it is contended that the action of the first respondent in issuing a notice of demand on February 9, 1990, has no legal force and it cannot be enforced against the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the action of the first respondent. It is stated that reassessment was framed as early as on September 7, 1982. The petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner no doubt filed a return declaring the same net principal value of the estate. However, assessment was framed determining the net principal value at Rs. 5,90,140 and the tax payable thereon at Rs. 43,965. The contention of the petitioner is that the reassessment is barred by limitation and therefore the petitioner filed an application under section 61 of the Act for rectification of the assessment. As the said application was not disposed of, the petitioner was under the impression that her application would be considered on the merits and decided in her favour. But, however, subsequent proceedings were initiated by the first respondent proposing to levy the penalty by his communication dated October 27, 1989. Though no further action ....