R NATARAJAN Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the Tribunal under s. 64 (1) of the E. D. Act, raising the following question : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under section 33 (1) (n) of the Estate Duty Act should be restricted to the value of the portion of the property used by the deceased for her residence "" *

(2.) THE deceased, Ranganayaki Ammal, was the owner of a building at Jeremiah Road , Madras. She occupied 2/3rds portion thereof for her residence and the remaining 1/3rds of the property was let out. THE contention raised before the Asst. controller was that the exemption under s. 33 (1) (n) of the Act was allowable to the full extent of Rs. 1, 00, 000. THE Asst. Controller took the view that the relief was restricted to the proportionate value of the portion under the occupation of the deceased. This view of the Asst. Controller was confirmed by the Appellate controller. THE executor appointed under the will left by the said Ranganayaki Ammal took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. THE Tribunal was of the view that the exemption under s. 33 (1) (n) of the Act was only in respect of a proportionate part of the portion under the occupation of the deceased. Thus, the order of the Asst. Controller, as confirmed by the Appellate Controller, was upheld.