TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (10) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the duty payable is not justified. 2. It was contended for the revenue that- (a)this ground was not raised before the lower authorities and hence cannot be permitted to be raised before the Tribunal; and (b)the Tribunal, though purporting to follow the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Devaki Ammal case (supra) cannot adjudicate on this plea as, in effect, it would be dealing with the constitutional validity and vires of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act') and this is not permissible in view of the Supreme Court decision in K.S. Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1966] 60 ITR 112 . 3. On the first contention, the learned Judicial Member held that the decision of the Madras High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional ground argued on behalf of the appellant is not a matter within the competence of the Tribunal. 6. As the learned Judicial Member and the learned Accountant Member have differed, the following questions were referred before us: 1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to raise the additional ground that the inclusion of Rs. 62,038 being the value of the share of the lineal descendants in the properties of the Hindu undivided family is not justified? 2. Whether, in the event of the appellant being permitted to raise the additional ground, the Tribunal could direct the deletion of Rs. 62,038 following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Devaki Ammal ( supra), where it has been held that section 34(1)(c) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention capable of being disposed of on a consideration of the legal position contained in section 12B and the facts on record. It is well-settled that when the main question is under issue before the Tribunal, there is no further limitation imposed by section 66(1) of the Act that the reference should be limited to those aspects of the question which had been argued before the Tribunal; and if a different aspect of the same question is sought to be raised for the first time before the High Court, it would be permissible for the High Court to allow such aspect being argued before it, even if that aspect had not been argued before the Tribunal." In the present case, the new ground raised before the Tribunal on the basis of Devaki Ammal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant should be permitted to raise this ground before the Tribunal. 8. Question No. (2): The Madras High Court in A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116 had struck down section 140A(3) of the 1961 Act as unconstitutional as being violative of the provisions of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Following this decision, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty imposed on the assessee under section 140A(3). It was contended for the revenue that when the Tribunal following the decision of the Madras High Court in Sali Maricar's case (supra) set aside the order of penalty, it impliedly held that section 140A(3) was unconstitutional as being violative of the provisions of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and the Tribunal,....