1984 (6) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oda. The facts of the case are that the deceased along with his three brothers inherited the house at Fatehgunj in Baroda from their father. Three of the brothers continued to reside in the property, whereas the deceased, who was a ground engineer in the Air India, used to be at the place of his duty all over the world. When on leave he would come and reside in the property at Baroda. In the assessment proceedings, the Assistant Controller overruled the plea on behalf of the accountable persons for relief under section 33(1)(n) and included the entire value of the deceased's share in this building in the principal value of the estate. On an appeal by the accountable persons, the accountable persons' appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tention to the following observations by Shri D.H. Nanavati in his treatise on The Estate Duty Act, third edn. : " The clause provides that in order to gain the exemption, the house must have been ' exclusively used by the deceased for his residence '. These words might, at first blush, appear to suggest that the benefit of the exemption would not be available unless the deceased resided in the house alone and that, therefore, the exemption would be lost if the deceased resided in the house even with, for example, his wife and children and/or his dependents. Apart from the fact that it was obviously not the intention of the Legislature to so restrict the operation of the exemption, the language of the clause itself also cannot be so cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ption under section 33(1)(n) was not available in the estate duty assessment. 3. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments on either side. The fact is that the deceased was a co-owner with his three brothers of the residential property at Baroda. He was occupying it along with his brothers whenever on leave or was otherwise in Baroda. The learned departmental representative has not been in a position to substantiate his argument by any judicial authority, whereas the learned counsel for the accountable persons has been able to support his arguments by two learned commentators to the effect that what was necessary was that the property should be used exclusively for residence. It was not necess....