M.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) TWO cases shown in the cause list as ED Ref. Nos. 53 of 1979 and 54 of 1979 were listed for hearing but when they were taken up for hearing only one statement of the case was available though there were two files bearing the above case numbers and two order sheets. On the statement of the case that is available firstly IT Ref. No. 53 of 1979 seems to have been written which has been changed to ED Ref. No. 54 of 1979. The paper book that was used at the hearing showed the number of the case ED Ref. No. 53 of 1979. No other paper book was available. We asked the reader to enquire from the office if there is any other record and he reported that no other record was available. In the institution register R.A. Nos. 1001 and 1002 are mentioned against the entry at serial No. 53 and R.A. No. 921 to 923 have been mentioned against the entry at serial No. 54. In our view the entry at serial No. 54 was wrongly made as there was no separate reference in respect of R.A. Nos. 921 to 923. We, therefore, treat this case as ED Ref. No. 53 of 1979 and proceed to dispose of the same accordingly.
(2.) THIS is a consolidated reference by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi, arising out of an order dt. 6th Aug., 1977, passed by the said Tribunal in Estate Duty Appeal Nos. 4, 8 and 9(Del)/1976 77 and the reference has been made at the instance of the accountable person Raj Kumar Goyal as well as the CED Meerut who had made reference application Nos. 1001 and 1002. (Del)/1977 78 and reference application Nos. 921, 922 and 923(Del)/1977 78, respectively. At the instance of the accountable person the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, S. 34(1)(c) became inoperative and ineffective in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal vs. Asstt. CED (1973) 91 ITR 24 (Mad) in face of the contrary decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N.V. Somaraju vs. Government of India and Ors. (1974) 97 ITR 97 (AP) and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Ram vs. Asstt. CED 1975 CTR (P&H) 163 : (1975) 101 ITR 539 (P&H) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the proviso and the Expln. I of S. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest of the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property was liable to be aggregated for rate purposes under S. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act, 1953 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estate duty chargeable under s. 5 of the ED Act, 1953, was deductible in computing the principal value of the estate of the deceased ?" At the instance of the CED, the following questions have been referred: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the two firms, namely, M/s Jugal Kishore Jai Prakash and M/s Jai Prakash Goyal and Bros. and Co. had any goodwill ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lineal descendants of the deceased had any share in the goodwill of the firm M/s Himpine Industries and the same was includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased for rate purposes under S. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the marriage expenses of the two unmarried daughters of the deceased should be excluded determining his 1/6th share in the HUF properties, which passed on his death ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the credit balance in the account of Shri Jugal Kishore was the property of the HUF of the deceased and his brother Shri Baij Nath and only 1/6th share in 1/2 share in the sum of Rs. 18,447 should be included in the principal estate of the deceased ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the annuity deposit of Rs. 12,700 was the property of the HUF of the deceased and only 1/6th share therein was liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased ? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 82,144 standing to the credit of Smt. Champa Devi, mother of the deceased, reverted to the two HUFs of the deceased and his brother Baij Nath and only 1/6th share of 1/2 share of Rs. 82,144 was included in the estate of the deceased ?" We have heard Sri P.K. Mishra, advocate, holding brief from Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, counsel for the assessee and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the controller respondent.
(3.) THE matter relates to the levy of estate duty on the death of one Jai Prakash Goyal who died on 22nd May, 1973, leaving behind a widow, four sons and two daughters. He was admittedly a member of the HUF and, therefore, the AO aggregated the value of the share of the lineal descendant of the deceased for determining the rate of estate duty to be paid on the property on the death of the deceased. It was contended on behalf of the accountable person that in view of a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal vs. Asstt. CED (1973) 91 ITR 24 (Mad) by which S. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act was held to be discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, the value of the share of lineal descendant cannot be aggregated for determining the rate of duty. The Tribunal did not accept this contention because of contrary decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. The controversy has since been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CED vs. V. Devaki Ammal (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 134 : (1995) 212 ITR 395 (SC) by which the aforesaid judgment of the Madras High Court has been upset and the provision of S. 34(1)(c) have been held to be valid. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, question No. 1 referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person is answered by saying that S. 34(1)(c) was operative and effective.;