- (1.) THIS is a reference under S. 64(1) of the ED Act, 1953. By the order, the following two questions have been referred: "l. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the estate duty chargeable under S. 5 of the ED Act, 1953, was not deductible in computing the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the value of the interest of the three male lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property was includible under S. 34(1)(c) of the Act for rate purposes ?"
(2.) THE first question is covered by the decision in Govind Prasad vs. CED [1981] 127 ITR 642 (All) whereas the second question by the decision in Badri Vishal Tandon vs. Asst. CED [1976] 103 ITR 468 (All). Both of these decisions are those of our High Court. Shri Bharatji Agarwal strenuously contended that the first question has not been correctly decided by this Court and as such requires reconsideration. We are not inclined to accept this submission. The controversy sought to be raised by him is fully discussed and wholly covered. It is not a case where a reference should, be made to a larger Bench. As, in our opinion, both Govind Prasad's case (supra) and Badri Vishal Tandon's case (supra) have rightly been decided, we do not consider it a fit case for making a reference to a larger Bench. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, to that also the same line of argument applies. The reference is decided against the assessee. The first question is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee whereas the second question is also decided in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Department will be entitled to its costs.;