1983 Supreme(MP) 10

G. G. Sohani and R. K. Vijawargiya, JJ.
Controller of Estate Duty v. B. K. Tiwari
M. C. C. No. 26 of 1981 (I); Decided on 10-1-1983

Headnote:Estate Duty Act, 1953 -- S. 1 -- HUF properties passed on death of Karta -- value of the properties chargeable to Estate Duty.

        By this reference under section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act) the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinions:--

        "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that even if the two properties belonged to the HUF the value of the properties could not be charged to Estate Duty?

        (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased who was the Karta of the HUF had no power of disposition over the properties in question of the HUF standing in the names of Smt. Savitridevi and Basdntkumar ?"

        Held : The facts giving rise to this reference have been elaborately stated in the order passed by this Court on 19th January 1979 reported in Controller of Estate Duty M. P. v. B. K. Tiwari (130 ITR 515); whereby the Tribunal was directed to submit an additional statement of case giving its finding regarding the acquisition of property in question. The Tribunal has now submitted the supplementary statement or case. The finding of the Tribunal is that the properties in question are the properties of the H. U. F. of which deceased R. B. Tiwari was the Karta.

        In view of the finding of the Tribunal, the property in question shall be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased as provided by section 7 of the Act. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the value of the two properties could not be charged to Estate Duty Our answer to question No. 1, therefore, is in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our answer to the first question, question No. 2 does not arise. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question.