The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the aggregation of lineal descendants' interests for rate purposes under S. 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act.

( 1 ) IN T. R. C. No. 17 of 1974 the income Tax Appellate Tribunal, bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the tribunal') at the instance of the revenue has referred the following questions under S. 64 (b) of the estate Duty Act of 1953 (Central act No. 34 of 1953) ('the Act'):- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal, an error of law to hold that the provisions of s. 7 (I) Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case ?

( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal an error of law to hold that the provisions of S, 34 (I) (c) Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case ? in T. R. C. No. 85 of 1975 the Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person ('assessee') has referred the following question : whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of S. 34 (1) (c) of the Estate Duty Act were operative and applicable to the facts of the case ? in order to appreciate the questions referred to this Court and the answers to. be furnished thereto, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the cases. 2. T. R. C. No. 17 of 1974 : One a. G. Changalarayalu, a member of a Mitakshara Hindu Undivided family ('hue") consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Andal Thayaramma, his son and a daughter, died on 17-4-1964. The HUF owned movable and immovable properties.

( 3 ) ON the death of her husband, andal Thayaramma filed a return under the Act before the Assistant controller of Estate Duty, Bangalore ('aced') who by his order dt. 21-2-1969 (Annexure-A) inter alia, held that a sum of Rs. 1,46,711, the value of the half share of the lineal descendants of the deceased was aggregable with the estate passing on the death of the deceased for the purposes of - rates of duty payable. Against the said order of aced and the aforeseid aggregation, with which alone, we are presently concerned, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate controller of Estate Duty, Southern zone, Madras ('appellate Collector'), who by his order dated 26-12-1970 (Annexure-B) dismissed the same. Against the said orders of the appellate Collector and ACED, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which by its order dt. 23-2-1974 accepted the same and held that the said aggregation was impermissible. Hence, this reference at the instance of the revenue.

( 4 ) T. R. C. No. 85 of 1975 : One shambulingegowda of Sakleshpur who was a member of an HUF and a mitakshara co-parcenary consisting ot himself and bis four sons (i) Shop shivappa, (ii) Shop Subbegowda, (iii) shop Shanthappa, and (iv) Shop slddegowda, died on 28-5. 1966. The huf owned various movable and immovable properties.

( 5 ) ON the death of Shambulingegowda, his eldest son Shop Shivappa filed a return under the Act berfore the ACED who on an examination of the same by his order dt. 30-11-1968 (Annexure-A) determined the 4/5th share value of the lineal descendants at Rs. 4,63,974 and aggregated the same for determining the rate ot estate duty payable on the estate passing on the death ot the said shambulingegowda. In the appeals tiled by the assessee the said aggregation has been upheld by the Appellate Controller and the Tribunal. Hence, this reference at the instance of the assessee.

( 6 ) IN T. R. C. No. 17 of 1974 the tribunal relying on a Division Bench ruling Of this Court in M. Rathnamala Amma v. Assistant Controller of estate Duty and Ors. (1975 ITR 238) has held that the share of lineal descendants cannot be aggregated. But, In T R. C. No. 85 of 1975 when a similar question arose, the very tribunal took the view that the ratio in Rathnamala Amma's case was not attracted and that the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in M. K. Balakrishna Menon v. Assistant controller of Estate Duty (83 ITR 162) applied.

( 7 ) BOTH these cases were Initially heard by a Division Bench consisting of Srintvasa lyengar and ram