TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (7) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged property which has neither been received by him or anyone else and which was not in existence at the time of death of the deceased ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in fixing the burden on the accountable person in respect of cash and jewellery which was never received by him and of explaining as to what the deceased did with the cash and jewellery which, according to the panchnama, was not found to exist at the time of the death of the deceased ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal is supported by evidence and material on record and is not perverse or unreasonable ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that cash amounting to Rs. 77,692 and jewellery of the estimated value of Rs. 3,30,168 passed on the death of the deceased and not cash amounting to Rs. 24,527 and jewellery worth Rs. 10, 151 as claimed by the accountable person on the basis of the panchnama, when the veracity of the panchnama has not been challenged ? 6. Whether on the proper interpretation of the provisions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was also rejected by order dated May 21, 1980. The petitioner then submitted reference application under section 64(1) of the Act before the Tribunal to refer the above questions to the High Court for its opinion. But the said application was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated April 15, 1981. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present application before this court under section 64(3) of the Act and has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer the questions of law, mentioned above, as arising out of its order dated May 21, 1980, for the opinion of the High Court. We have heard Shri V. K. Singhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri R. N. Surolia, the learned counsel for the Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being an accountable person is liable to pay estate duty only on the property passing on the death of the deceased which he actually receives and not as per the wealth-tax return of the deceased person. The accountable perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments on the ground that it was not done for the sake of dignity of the house. Therefore, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the deceased as if she was in possession of the jewellery and ornaments in the earlier years. The said order of the Wealth-tax Officer was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the contention of the petitioner that he did not receive the jewellery as mentioned in the wealth-tax return filed by the assessee was rejected as also the evidence regarding the panchnama. The deceased owned an immovable property known as Vikram Bhawan. The accountable person must declare the value of the property in the statement of accounts at Rs. 70,000. It was only during the assessment proceedings before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that the petitioner claimed that since the property was let out its value should be determined on rent capitalisation method which comes to Rs.37,400. The property had been valued by the approved valuer at Rs. 70,000 as on April 1, 1973, and it was also shown in the wealth-tax assessment. Even in the land and building tax assessment for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the property was shown at Rs. 70,000. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the petitioner. The Tribunal should be asked to refer the questions if they really arise out of the order irrespective of the fact whether the contentions and submissions made by the petitioner are valid and correct, or not or whether the petitioner will ultimately succeed or not. We have given our serious thought to the whole matter and have also carefully gone through the various orders. In our opinion, questions of law do arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 21, 1980. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions: " 1. Whether on the proper interpretation and construction of the phrase 'property passing on the death' under section 2(16) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the property which has not actually been received by the accountable person or anyone else, shall be deemed to be the property passing on the death of the deceased by any fiction of law? 2. Whether on the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, there could be any charge and liability for payment of duty under section 5 of the Act, on the accountable person in respect ....