T.D.SUGLA, J. - (1.)THE Tribunal has referred only one question of law to this Court for opinion under S. 64(1) of the ED Act, 1953. The question reads thus :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, on the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in CED vs. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder 1973 CTR (SC) 193 : (1973) (88 ITR 448) (SC) and CED vs. N. R. Ramarathnam 1973 CTR (SC) 421 : (1973 (91 ITR 1) (SC), was correct in holding : (a) that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record in so far as its order dt. 20th Dec., 1970 in ED Application No. 100 of 1966 67 is concerned, and (b) that the finding of the Tribunal upholding the inclusion of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,36,000 in the estate of the deceased passing on his death under S. 10 of the Act merited deletion ?"

(2.)THE deceased had, during his lifetime, given a sum of Rs. 3,36,000 by way of gifts to his wife and sons including minor sons. The amounts were gifted in cash after he had withdrawn the money from his bank account. Subsequently, the amounts were deposited by the donees with M/s G. T. Badamia & Sons, then a proprietary concern of the deceased. The business was converted into a partnership consisting of the deceased having 9 annas share and his son, Valimohomed, having 7 annas share in the profits and losses w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1948.
The Departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal held that the provisions of S. 10 of the ED Act, 1953, were attracted inasmuch as the amounts given by way of gifts by the deceased continued to remain in the business of which the deceased was a proprietor for some time and had become and continued as partner thereafter. It appears that, at the instance of the accountable person, reference was made by the Tribunal to the Court under S. 64(1) of the ED Act. Subsequent thereto, the Supreme Court, in the cases of CED vs. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder (supra) and CIT vs. N. R. Ramarathnam (supra), held that S. 10 of the ED Act was not applicable to cases of gifts by the deceased merely because, after the amounts were received by the donees, the donees had chosen to deposit the moneys with a concern in which the deceased had proprietary or partnership interest. On the basis of the abovesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court, the accountable person filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal on 4th March, 1974. It was claimed that the order passed by the Tribunal originally suffered from a mistake apparent on the face of the record in view of the aforesaid two Supreme Court decisions and, therefore, the order required to be rectified in the light of the Supreme Court judgments.

(3.)UPON hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order holding that its appellate order suffered from a mistake apparent on the face of the record in view of the two Supreme Court decisions . The Tribunal further held that the amount of Rs. 3,36,000 gifted by the deceased to his wife and sons including minor sons was not includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.