- (1.) THE HUF consisting of L. Damodar Das (karta and his only son. Madan Mohan) owned a house in Kachcha Katra, Shahjahanpur. This was occupied by Lala Damodar Das for residential purposes. Lala Damodar Das died on April 15, 1967. The Assistant CED valued the house at Rs. 58,500. He added a half share (Rs. 29,250) in this house belonging to the son under Section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act for rate purposes.
(2.) ON appeal, the Zonal Appellate Controller deleted this inclusion on the ground that the residential house was totally exempt under Clause (n) of Section 33(1) of the Act. The department went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the exemption given by Clause (c) of Section 34(1) was total. In other words, the value of the residential house is not only excluded from the estate duty but is also excluded for the purposes of determining estate duty. Clause (c)of Section 34(1) deals with properties specifically excluded by Clause (a). Since one residential house is specifically excluded by Clause (a) of Section 34(1) even for the purposes of determining the rate of estate duty, the valuation of the house used by Damodar Das exclusively for his residential purposes could not be included in the estate of the deceased for rate purposes. On this view, the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) AT the instance of the department, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court, under Section 64(1) of the Act : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the value of the residential house exclusively used by Shri Damodar Das, deceased, member of the Hindu undivided family was not includible for rate purposes in view of the provisions of section 33(1)(n) read with sections 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? ' ;