BALIA, J. - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)THE aforesaid three cases arise out of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 12. 5. 1997 related to the Estate Duty case of Late M. D. Ajit Singh, who expired on 19. 4. 1978.
The Income Tax Reference No. 88/98 is a reference submitted by the Tribunal alongwith statement of case referring the following question as question of law for the opinion of this Court while partly allowing the application of the assessee under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 since replealed: " (2) (a) whether where no time limit has been prescribed by the statute for completing the assessment the proceedings can be held to be barred by limitation of time if finalised after inordinate delay?"

While submitting the statement of case and referring the above question, the Tribunal has rejected to make reference of other questions suggested by the assessee, which are as under:- " (1) (a) Whether recording of reasons prior to issue of notice u/s. 59 of Estate Duty Act is a mandatory requirement and whether failure to record reasons prior to issue of notice can initiate a valid proceedings u/s. 59? (b) Whether the report of Inspector can constitute reasons to believe as contemplated u/s. 59 of the Estate Duty Act and can initiate proceedings of Estate Duty? (2) (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case the inordinate delay of 13 years would render the proceedings barred by limitation of time? (3) (a) Whether the vagueness of notice and vital corrections made in the notice u/s. 59 can justify the proceedings initiated u/s. 59? (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case the corrections made were vital corrections and cannot justify initiation of proceedings u/s. 59? (4) Whether in view of the Wealth tax proceedings in which the assets were held to be belonging to the Joint Hindu Family. The same assets can be included in the Estate of the deceased for Estate Duty purposes or could also form a basis for reasons to believe that assets liable to Estate duty has escaped assessment? (5) Whether the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had violated the principles of natural justice in not supplying the material requested for by the Accountable Persons and in view of such law whether assessment can be quashed or annulled?"

The Estate Duty Reference No. 1/1999 is preferred by the assessee under Sec. 64 (3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 for calling upon the tribunal to refer the aforesaid question as also questions of law.

By order dated 14. 2. 2001, this Court after referring to the decision of Bombay High Court in Khandvala and Co. vs. CIT (14 ITR 635) approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmiratan vs. CIT (73 ITR 634) has directed the reference application to be listed alongwith D. B. I. T. Reference No. 88/98 and he heard and decided at the time of hearing of that Reference.

(3.)YET another application under Sec. 64 (3) has been moved by the revenue which is Estate Duty Reference Application No. 16/98. As the application has been moved by the revenue for stating the case and referring following question as a question of law arising out of its appellate order but was also rejected by the Tribunal by separate order dated 21. 5. 1998, and the application arose out of the same order in respect of which the Tribunal has submitted a reference, this application has also been directed to be listed alongwith aforesaid two cases to be heard together. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is legally justified in giving the finding that no interest is chargeable under Sec. 53 (3) of the E. D. Act where the accountable persons have neither sought extension of time nor any time has been granted for delivering account of all properties in respect of which Estate Duty is payable?"
The facts which have led to filing of these three applications are that M. D. Ajeet Singh in respect of whose Estate, these proceedings have been taken, expired on 19. 4. 1978. In terms of Sec. 5 of the Act of 1953, in case of every person dying after the commencement of the Act of 1953, Duty there shall be levied and paid upon the principal value ascertained as provided under the statute on all property, settled or not settled, including agricultural land situated and specified in the First Schedule to the Act, which passes on the death of such person, a duty called "estate duty" at the rates fixed in accordance with section 35.

Under Sec. 53 (3) of the Act, every person accountable for Estate Duty is required to submit within six months from the death of deceased an account in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner of all properties in respect of which estate duty is payable. Such period is extendable by the Controller on terms and conditions which may also include the condition of payment of interest. Such conditions are to be prescribed by the Rules.