Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Central Board of Direct Taxes has submitted this statement of the case as well as a supplementary statement for the opinion of this court on a certain question of law.
(2.) THE reference arises out of the estate duty assessment of late K. M. Mitra, who died on 11th February, 1957. On his death, his son, Aloke Mitra, the present applicant, filed an estate duty return valuing the estate of the deceased at Rs. 3,74,235. This included 502 shares of Rs. 100 each held by the deceased in Mitra Prakashan (P.) Ltd. and 225 shares of Rs. 100 each held by the deceased in Maya Press (P.) Ltd. THE Assistant Controller, however, did not accept this part of the return. He held that 2,002 shares in Mitra Prakashan (P.) Ltd. and 1,602 shares in Maya Press (P.) Ltd. were held by the deceased and were liable to be included in his estate. He held that the shares standing in the name of the deceased's wife and sons were held by the deceased benami in the name of the wife and the sons. Since the wife had no beneficial interest in the shares, she could not be held to have become an absolute owner of these shares on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The applicant, who was the accountable person, felt aggrieved, and went up in appeal to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Board affirmed the finding that the deceased held shares in the two companies benami in the name of his wife, sons, etc., and that all such shares were liable to be included in his estate. The finding that the Hindu Succession Act did not help the deceased's wife was also affirmed. The accountable person applied under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for reference of certain questions of law to this court. The Board held that the finding that the shares were held by the deceased in the name of his wife and sons etc., benami, was a finding of fact, and it did not raise any question of law. In the opinion of the Board, there was only one question of law involved in the case, and the same was referred. The question was : "Whether the shares allotted to the wife of the deceased as his nominee and/or benamidar were, as from the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956), held by the her as full owner thereof, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of that Act ?".
(3.) THE accountable person moved this court under Section 64(2) of the Estate Duty Act. A Bench of this court held that the question whether, on the facts found by the Board, the shares allotted to the wife and sons should be treated as the son's shares or K. M. Mitra's shares, is a question of law, and not just a question of fact. THE contention that if the shares be deemed to be held by the deceased benami in the name of his wife and sons, the deceased had no power to dispose of these shares, was also held to raise a question of law. This court, therefore, directed the Board to draw up a supplementary statement of the case and to refer the following questions of law : "(2) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the shares which stood in the names of the wife and the sons of the deceased, Sri K. M. Mitra, were held by them as benami and they really belonged to Sri K.M. Mitra deceased ? (3) Assuming that the shares in dispute really belonged to Sri K. M. Mitra, deceased, whether those shares in the circumstances of the case constituted property which passed on the death of Sri K. M. Mitra for the purposes of Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act ?" Learned counsel for the department urged that the finding that the shares were held by the deceased benatni in the name of his wife and sons, etc., was a finding of fact, and did not raise any question of law. This Bench was not bound by the opinion expressed by the previous Bench while calling for a reference that a question of law arose. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is plainly right. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Anusuya Devi, 1968 68 ITR 750, 756; [1968] 2 S.C.R. 466 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held : "It is well settled that the High Court may decline to answer a question of fact or a question of law which is purely academic, or has no bearing on the dispute between the parties or though referred by the Tribunal does not arise out of its order. The High Court may also decline to answer a question arising out of the order of the Tribunal, if it is unnecessary or irrelevant or is not calculated to dispose of the real issue between the taxpayer and the department. If the power of the High Court to refuse to answer questions other than those which are questions of law directly related to the dispute between the taxyayer and the department, and which, when answered, would determine qua that question the dispute, be granted, we fail to see any ground for restricting that power when by an erroneous order the High Court has directed the Tribunal to state a case on a question which did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal." ;