TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (5) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7th December, 1969 leaving behind movable and immovable properties and was governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. Evidently, the share of the deceased in the movable as well as the immovable properties in the estate, would be half. 'The petitioner being an accountable person within the meaning of the E.D. Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act ") filed a return declaring the principal value of the share of the deceased in the joint family properties at Rs. 60,208. Respondent No. 3, namely, the Asst. Controller of Estate Duty, Ranchi, by his order dated September 4, 1973 (annex. " I "), determined the value of the properties passing on the death of the deceased at Rs. 1,01,359. He also added an equal sum and further a sum of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without any male lineal descendant and the others having lineal descendants. Reliance in support of this proposition was placed on a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24. It was held in that case that the provisions of s. 34(1)(c) which was a machinery section had gone far beyond the permissible limit by making a discrimination between the coparceners who died leaving lineal descendants and others, thus imposing a higher tax burden and incidence of tax on the property passing on the death of the former coparcener. The Madras High Court itself had earlier taken a contrary view in the case of PL. S. RM. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Asst. CED [1970] 76 ITR 402. The later decision has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing in support of the- petitioner, is directed on the provision where it states that the interests in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased member shall be aggregated so as to form one estate. Learned counsel argued that although under s. 5, namely, the charging section, levy of estate duty is to be paid " upon the principal value ascertained ...... of- all properties, settled or not settled ...... Which passes on the death of such person dying after the commencement of the Act, at the rates fixed in accordance with section 35 clause (c) of s. 34(1) provided for aggregating the interest of the lineal descendants, which was beyond the purview and the mischief of the charging section so as to form one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, that interest could not be brought under the charging section by the process of aggregation said to be for rate purposes. The essence of the above observation of the learned judges of the Madras High Court is that they thought that the interest of the lineal ,descendants was also subjected to a duty. Having examined the decision critically, I find myself unable- to agree with the above view. The Madras High Court's view has not been accepted in any of the cases noticed above. The provision of s. 34(1)(c) of the Act, providing for an aggregation of the shares of the lineal descendants, was added by the Amendment Act, 1958, which came into force on' July 1, 1960. The Amending Act, however, does not give any indication as to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instead of violating the principle of equality enshrined under art. 14 of the Constitution of India. But even assuming that the said provision made any invidious classifications as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, persons governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, leaving male lineal descendants can be grouped into one category and those who do not leave any lineal descendant, into another. This principle has been accepted in all the above cases, except in the Madras case. it is, therefore, not possible, to hold that the impugned provision makes an inroad into the property of the lineal descendant of the deceased. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 ....