The filing of a return by an accountable person commences proceedings for levy of estate duty under the Estate Duty Act. The bar of limitation contained in Section 73A applies only in cases where proceedings for assessment have not commenced within five years of the date of death.

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the estate duty proceedings had not become time-barred in this case in terms of the provisions contained in Section 13A(a) of the Estate Duty Act ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the Appellate Controller directing the Assistant Controller to re-do the assessment after providing full opportunity of hearing to the karta of the HUF also ?"

2. THE dispute relates to the estate of the deceased, Shyam Hari Singhania, who died on the 3rd December, 1960. At the time of his death he owned separate and self-acquired property, and was also a member of a HUF of which Sir Padampat Singhania, his father, was the karta. Shyam Hari Singhania had no issue, and left behind him a widow, Smt. Usha Devi, and his mother, Lady Ansuiya Devi (class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act). On the 1st August, 1961, Lady Ansuiya Devi filed a return showing the net value of the estate as Rs. 11,63,629. Later on, the widow, Smt. Usha Devi, also filed a return on 16th August, 1963, at the request of the department. Sir Padampat Singhania did not file any return at all in respect of the estate of the deceased. On the 14th August, 1969, a notice under Section 58(2) of the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued by the Assistant Controller, and the assessment completed on the 27th June, 1972. Although no formal notice was given to Sir Padampat Singhania, who was the karta of the HUF of which the deceased was a coparcener, the Assistant Controller passed an assessment order treating him also as one of the accountable persons. As in the present case we are not concerned with the valuation of the estate or the estate duty imposed thereon, it is not necessary to state these facts. An appeal was filed by Sir Padampat Singhania as karta of the HUF, Lady Ansuiya Devi and Smt. Usha Devi. THE appellate authority remanded the matter to the Assistant Controller, inter alia, on the ground that the case could not be properly disposed of without notice to Sir Padampat Singhania, who was the karta of the HUF. All the three, persons, who were appellants before the Assistant Commissioner, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged that the assessments were barred by time in view of Section 73A, inasmuch as no proceedings for the levy of estate duty had been commenced within five years of the death of the deceased. It was also contended that the AAC erred in sending back the case for starting proceedings against Sir Padampat Singhania as karta of the HUF as proceedings against him could not be started after the expiry of five years as set down in Section 73A. Both these con tentions have been rejected by the Tribunal. We will deal with the questions seriatim.

It is necessary to extract Section 73A in order to answer the first question. This provision is couched in the following terms:

"No proceedings for the levy of any estate duty under this Act shall be commenced-

(a) in the case of a first assessment, after the expiration of five years from the date of death of the deceased in respect of whose property estate duty became payable ; and

(b) in the case of a reassessment, after the expiration of three years from the date of assessment of such property to estate duty under this Act."

3. SRI Vibhav Upadhya appearing on behalf of the assessee has urged that Section 73A contemplates a positive act on the part of the statutory authorities for commencing proceedings for levy of estate duty, and inasmuch as in the present case the death had occurred on the 3rd December, 1960, and the first time when action taken by the Assistant Controller was on 14th August, 1969, when a notice under Section 58(2) was issued, the p