1983 (4) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....operty of the family was treated as smaller HUF. In the estate duty return Shri Nand Kishore, the accountable person of the deceased had shown the half share of the deceased in such property. The Asstt. CED made an upward revision of the HUF property and added half share of the deceased therein to the principal value of the estate determined by him. The Asstt. Controller further added the balance half share to the principal value for rate purposes only with the remarks "L.D. Share". There is, however, no discussion about this treatment in his order made u/s 58(3) of the Act. 3. In appeal, it was submitted that the addition of Rs. 2,67,328 for rate purposes was contrary to law. In order to better appreciate the rival stand of the parties,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erty she is beyond the purview of this section. In the case in question the husband of the deceased Smt. Leela Devi died in the year 1949 (when the estate duty Act, 1953 had not come into force) leaving behind the major son Shri Nand Kishore as the only surviving male member (the only coparcener) and thus the Karta of his joint family and the widow Smt. Leela Devi and the wife of Shri Nand Kishore as members of that HUF. The question of aggregation the share of lineal descendant does not arise at all at the time of the death of Smt. Leela Devi as lineal descendant can only be in the male line and moreover a woman member cannot demand a partition of the coparcenary property. Thus she had no coparcenary interest in the joint family propert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee, the decision in the case of Alladikuppuswamy has no application to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present appeal. In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on othe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K. Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum & Ors. (1981) 129 ITO 440 (SC), of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Tribhavan Das vs. CED (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 221 : (1981) 130 ITR 326 (Guj) and in the case of Goswami Vraj Raiji Ranchhodlalji Maharaj vs. CED 1977 CTR (Guj) 89 : (1978) 112 ITR 851 (Guj) as well as the decisions reported in AIR 1965 SC 825 and AIR 1967 SC 272. The ld. counsel for the accountable person further submitted that even assuming for th....