1980 (7) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should not be included in the total value of the estate for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty ? " The dispute relates to the assessment of estate duty on the estate of Brijlal who died on 12th July, 1967. The accountable person is Santram, one of the sons of the deceased. In determining the total value of the estate, an amount of Rs. 1,27,053, representing the value of the interest in the joint family property of all the lineal descendants of the deceased, was added under s. 34(1)(c) of the Act by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The Appellate Controller maintained the addition subject to some relief in regard to the valuation of certain assets. In second appeal filed before the Tribunal, it was held that s. 34(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....validity has already been examined by different High Courts under art. 226 and the Tribunal has followed the view expressed by one of the High Courts that the provision is invalid. Now, coming to the constitutional validity of s. 34(1)(c), we do not think it necessary to give our reasons in detail, for, we substantially agree with the reasons expressed by the Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Allahabad High Courts holding the provision to be valid. The reasoning of the Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED [1973] 91 ITR 24 in holding that s. 34(1)(c) is invalid, is that this section goes beyond the charging section and that it creates a discrimination between coparceners who are lineal descendants and coparceners who are not lineal des....