- (1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, referred the following four questions of law for our opinion : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had Information in his possession in consequence of which he could have reason to believe that any property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment ? (2) Whether Smt. Chander Mohni, daughter of the deceased, date Shri Goverdhan Dass, is an accountable person in respect of the property passing on the death of late Shri Goverdhan Dass ? 3. If question No. 2 be decided in the affirmative, whether the notice issued under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act is bad in law ? 4. Whether, unequal partition of the joint Hindu family properties amongst the deceased and his sons have given rise to any disposition made by the deceased in favour of his relatives within the meaning of Section 27 of the Estate Duty Act ? "
(2.) THE case relates to the estate of Goverdhan Dass, a leading advocate of Ferozepore City. He died on August 7, 1959. He was survived by two sons, Kul Bhushan, advocate, and his younger brother, Brij Bhushan. He also left a married daughter, Shrimati Chander Mohni. The Assistant Controller, ESTATE Duty, treated both the sons as accountable persons and assessed them or June 25, 1960, on the principal value of Rs. 74,361. Later on, the Assistant Controller issued a notice under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on August 2, 1960. The Assistant Controller in pursuance of the said notice determined the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 1,94,218. The accountable persons appealed to the Zonal Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Delhi. The Appellate Controller partially allowed the appeal by his order dated October 26, 1965. The accountable persons were not satisfied with the relief granted and they took up the matter in second appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the following three contentions were raised : (i) that at the time of the original assessment, the accountable persons had furnished all the relevant information including copies of trust deed, partition deed, inventory, etc. , and, therefore, the Assistant Controller could not have come across any fresh information subsequent to the order of assessment, and, as such, he could not reopen the assessment under Section 59; (ii) that Shrimati Chander Mohni was an accountable person and as no notice of proceedings under Section 59 of the Act was issued to her, the entire proceedings taken under Section 59 were bad in law ; and (in) that the inclusion of Rs. 55,413 representing the difference between the value of the properties allotted to the deceased on partition and the value of the share to which he was entitled could not be included in the estate of the deceased for the purposes of estate duty.
(3.) THE other matters dealt with by the Tribunal pertained to mere questions of fact with which we are not concerned in this reference. The Tribunal by its order dated January 22, 1968, decided all the three contentions against the accountable persons, but gave certain relief on matters with which we are not concerned.;