TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (5) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e left behind his widow, Valli, his two sons, Sivasailam and Krishnamoorthy and two daughters, Kalyani and Seetha. Some time after his death, Sivasailam, as an accountable person, rendered the estate duty account. All the heirs, other than Shri Sivasailam, who were also the accountable persons wrote to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on December 15, 1964, that, as accountable persons, they agreed to abide by the accounts rendered by Sri Sivasailam and any explanation furnished by him with regard to the estate duty case would be binding on them. Messrs. Amalgamations P. Ltd. (shortly referred to as "Amalgamations") is a company which holds shares in most of the companies including Simpson and Co. Ltd. (shortly referred to as "Simpso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the deceased in the company had to be made in the manner laid down in rule 15 framed by the Board under section 20(1)(e) of the Estate Duty Act. The principal value of the assets was determined at Rs. 2,12,29,998 and the duty was computed at Rs. 1,67,74,697.58. There was no appeal against the assessment by any of the accountable persons. Kalyani Sundaram, one of the daughters of the deceased and the appellant before us, became entitled on the death of Anantharamakrishnan to fifth share in his estate under the Hindu Succession Act. Her husband, K. S. Sundaram, as her agent constituted by power of attorney, wrote on June 11, 1974, to the Assistant Controller seeking certain clarifications regarding the assessment. The Assistant Controll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt which his principal had to pay to Amalgamations by way of reimbursement of the duty. If the apportionment of the duty had been effected by the order itself, he said, the need for rectification would not have arisen. Section 61 empowers the Controller "to rectify any mistake apparent from the record" at any time within five years from the date of the order passed by him. On January 25, 1975, the Assistant Controller passed an order declaring that he was unable to discover any mistake which called for rectification in the assessment order and, therefore, he declined to act under section 61 of the Act. This order was challenged by writ petitions out of which the present appeals arise. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Sethuram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to any heir ; therefore, no heir is called upon to pay the amount of estate duty attributable to the inclusion of that slice in the chargeable estate. By section 19, the controlled company itself is liable to pay the corresponding amount of estate duty. In the present case, however, learned counsel urges, no slice of the assets of Amalgamations has been included in the estate of the deceased by the assessing authority as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased and, therefore, the demand issued to the controlled company constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The application of rule 15 is also contested and this, according to learned counsel, is clear mistake committed by the Controller. It is urged that there is a mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after, but we do not propose to enter into this question. Further, it appears that this litigation is woven around a private dispute among the family members. That is hardly any justification for invoking section 61 of the Act. We have carefully perused the reasons given individually by the two learned judges of the High Court and we are in complete agreement with them that there is no mistake apparent on the record. In support of the contention that there was a mistake apparent on the record, learned counsel has referred us to Harz Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque [1955] 1 SCR 1104, Hind Trading Co. v. Union of India [1969] 2 SCR 533, M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC) and CIT ....