- (1.) ON an application filed under Section 64(6) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : "Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deceased had 1/3rd share in Nahata Bhawan, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, and the said share passed on the death of the deceased ? Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not computing the value of Nahata Bhawan in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ? Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not applying multiple of ten on the net maintainable rent while computing value of Nahata Bhawan ? Whether the Tribunal was right in law in determining interest of the deceased in Nahata Bhawan at Rs. 2 lakhs ?"
(2.) IN the case in hand, the facts are that one Shri Prakashmal Nahata died on September 6, 1970. There are eight accountable persons. Smt. Urmila Nahata was the wife of the deceased and she filed the estate duty return in respect of the properties, which according to her belong to her husband, on which estate duty was payable. The said accountable person has declared l/3rd share in Nahata Bhawan, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, at Rs. 98,000, which includes the property of the deceased, Prakashmal Nahata. The Estate Duty Controller issued notices under Sections 59 and 55 to other accountable persons, who are the successors to the property of the deceased, Prakashmal Nahata. One of the accountable person, Ghanshyam Nahata, claimed before the Assistant Controller that Nahata Bhawan was trust property and the deceased was one of the beneficiaries in the income of the property in "Nahata Bhawan" to the tune of l/3rd during his life time, therefore, the deceased had no interest or ownership in the Nahata Bhawan, therefore, no estate duty should be charged on l/3rd share of the Nahata Bhawan on the death of Shri Prakashmal Nahata. The Assistant Controller did not accept the claim of the accountable person, Ghanshyam Nahata, that l/3rd share of the Nahata Bhawan does not pass on to the successor on the death of Shri Prakashmal Nahata. Thereafter the statements were recorded and necessary documents were examined by the Assistant Controller and he gave the finding in para. 15 of his order that till the date of death the accumulations and income accrued in the books of Nahata Bhawan Trust, which passed according to him to Smt. Urmila under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, but possession and the enjoyment of the property remained with Gyanmal Nahata and the legal heirs of Kistur Chand Nahata. He accordingly came to the conclusion that all of them were legal heirs and accountable persons of the deceased. In para. 19 of his order, he has valued the property to the tune of Rs. 6,30,000 and the share of the deceased comes to Rs. 2, 10,000. In appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, the view taken by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty has been affirmed. Even the Tribunal also has affirmed the conclusion reached by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that the deceased, Prakashmal Nahata was having l/3rd share in the Nahata Bhawan and on his death the property passes to the heirs of Prakashmal Nahata, The value also has not been disturbed by all the three authorities.
(3.) THEREAFTER a miscellaneous application has been moved by the accountable persons that the property in question be valued as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and multiplier should be taken ten times of the part of the property, which has been passed on to the accountable persons. That miscellaneous application also has been rejected by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Ranka, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not seriously pressed the issue involved in question No. 1, but he submits that when there is no specific provision or rule in the estate duty act as to how to value the property, which has passed to the accountable persons, the value can be taken as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Madhusudan Dwarkadas Vora v. Superintendent of Stamps [1983] 141 ITR 802. He further submits that multiplier should be taken ten times of the part of the property and for that he has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of CWT v. Vallabh Das [2003] 262 ITR 319. ;