A P SMT MANGALAGAURI SHANTILAL Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY
LAWS(IT)-1989-11-4
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 06,1989

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Per Shri M. A.A.Khan, Judicial Member - By his order dated October 17, 1985 the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty has confirmed the inclusion in the principal value of the estate of the deceased an amount of Rs. 50,000 received by his legal representative as compensation for his death. Hence this second appeal by the Accountable Person (A. P.). - (1.)
(2.)The A. P. is the widow of late Mr. Shantilal Kalidas Rughani of Rajkot (the deceased). On March 8, 1974 a public carrier dashed against the scooter of the deceased causing injuries to him. He died of those injuries on 13-3-1974. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) awarded, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the death of the deceased to his legal representatives. The Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty (ACED) included the above mentioned amount in the principal value of the property of the deceased, passing on his death, on the ground that u/s. 1A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 the deceased was having a right to maintain an action for compensation for the injuries sustained by him since such right was not forgone by him in his lifetime, that was inherited by his dependants/legal representatives who received the compensation in question in question, for the Claims Tribunal. The ACED thus held the view that the right of the deceased to bring an action for compensation for the injuries sustained by him was property within the meaning of the term defined in sec. 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (the Act) which existed at the time of his death and passed on his death to his legal representatives and was accordingly dutiable u/s. 5 of the Act. In appeal the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty approved of this line of the reasoning and dismissed APs appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that what has undisputedly been received in the instant case compensation for the death of the deceased and since this nature of property could have never been the property of the deceased so as to pass on his death it was not dutiable. Supreme Court decision in the case of M. Ct. Muthiah v. CED [1986] 161 ITR 768 has been relied upon in this behalf. On the other hand the learned DR has supported the order under appeal on the lines adopted by the ACED.

(3.)AFTER having heard the parties we entertain no doubt the authorities below have taken a totally incorrect view of the law and therefore, the order under appeal is not at all sustainable.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.