SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) COLONEL V. R. Mohan died on 28th Jan., 1973 leaving the petitioner as his widow. He also left behind two sons. The petitioner filed a return under the ED Act on 29th Nov., 1973. The Asstt. CED, Lucknow, passed an a assessment order on 20th April 1974 wherein he included the shares of lineal descendants of the deceased in the assessable estate for rate purposes. The value of such shares determined was Rs. 9,09,038,00/-. This was done in view of S. 34 (1)(c) of the ED Act.
(2.) THE petitioner challenged the validity of S. 34 (1)(c) of the Act on the ground that it is violative of the constitutional guarantee under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. For the petitioner reliance was placed upon V. D. Ammal vs. Asstt. CED (1973) 91 ITR 24 (Mad). In that case Madras High Court held that S. 34 (1) (c) of the Act voiated Art. 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand, a decision of our court in Badri Vishal Tandon vs. Asstt. CED 1975 CTR (All) : (1976) 103 ITR 468 (All) took a contrary view that the aforesaid provision did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. The view taken by this Court finds support from the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Komanduri Seshamam vs. ACED and N. Krishna Prasad vs. Asstt. CED (1972) 86 ITR 332. In view of this difference of opinion and in view of Art. 131-A(2) of the constitution, which was introduced by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, this Court referred the question "whether S. 34 (1) (c) of the ED Act violates Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution for decision to the Supreme Court. By an order dt. 1st May 1978, the Supreme Court has referred the case back to this Court because in the meanwhile Art. 131-A(2) has been repealed by the constitution Forty- third Amendment) Act. In respect of the attack under Art. 19 (1)(f) of the Constitution, we agree with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Ram vs. Asstt. CED 1975 CTR 163 (P&H) : (1976) 101 ITR 539 (P&H) that S. 34 (1) (c) does not make an inroad into the property of the lineal descendants by aggregating their share with the shares of the deceased and subjecting the share of the deceased to a rate of duty applicable to the whole aggregated income. The provision hence does not violate Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Gulati stressed that S. 34 (1) (c) went beyond s. 5, it was violative of Art. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. We do not agree with the learned counsel. In our opinion, the view expressed by this Court is binding on us. In view of the decision of this Court, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but under the circumstances without any orders as to costs;