TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (12) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty payable on the property passing on the death of the deceased, aggregation of the share of lineal descendants in terms of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act is correct ? " The facts in so far as they are relevant for answering the two questions referred are : The deceased was a member of an HUF consisting of himself and his two sons. On his death the accountable persons filed the return showing the value of the I estate of the deceased, i.e. his share in the properties owned by the HUF, at Rs. 94,835. The Asst. Controller, however, disagreed with this valuation, and valued the entire properties held by the HUF at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubt, on a reading of s. 33(1)(n) along with s. 39(1), that the exemption must be confined only to the deceased's share in the residential house. Section 33(1)(n) reads: "33. Exemptions.-(1) To the extent specified against each of the clauses in this sub-section, no estate duty shall be payable in respect of property of any of the following kinds belonging to the deceased which passes on his death-. ...... (n) one house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for his residence, to the extent the principal value thereof does not exceed rupees one lakh if such house is situate in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand, and the full principal value thereof, in any other case. " Several High Courts have taken the unif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dants should not be aggregated with the share of the deceased as contemplated by s. 34(1)(c). The learned judges merely followed the earlier decision of this court in R. C. No. 30/74, dated 19th October, 1976. We have sent for that decision and have perused it. The paragraph in that judgment, which has indeed been quoted in the aforesaid decision, reads as follows: " So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 74,882, being the entire value of the residential house in which the deceased had one-third share, the deceased's 1/3 share will have to be exempted as per the provisions of section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act. So far as the balance of the value is concerned, it is not in dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....state of the deceased arose for consideration. We do not find any reference to s. 34(1)(c) or s. 34(1)(a) in the decision. But this decision in R.C. No. 30/74 was understood as applying to the facts of the case in CED v. Estate of Late Durga Prasad Beharilal [1979] 116 ITR 692 (AP), though in the latter case the question squarely arose with reference to s. 34(1)(c). In view of the fact that the subsequent Bench did not itself Jay down any principle but merely purported to follow an earlier decision, under the impression that that decision covered the facts before them, we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot be understood as an authority for the proposition that the shares of the lineal descendants cannot be aggregated with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of coparcenary property exemption can be claimed only in respect of the interest of the deceased in that house and not in respect of the whole house in which the surviving coparceners also have interest. Hence, exclusion of the entire value of the house at the stage of valuation under s. 39 is not called for. The principal value of all the properties of the deceased should be first ascertained in accordance with the rules contained in the Act, including s. 39, and then the value of items in respect of which estate duty is not payable under ss. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33(1)(a) to (p) should be determined. While computing estate duty deduction should be given in respect of the value of these items on which estate duty is not payable.....