CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Vs. SHAKUNTLA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:3. One Shri Raja Babu Agrawal expired on 29th November, 1978. He was the owner of 12 house properties and was a regular wealth tax assessee. Respondent Smt. Shakuntla Agrawal filed Estate Duty return. She is wife of deceased Raja Babu Agrawal. The value of the 12 houses was declared in the return at Rs. 4,25,672/- as per the report of the approved valuer. Before the Assistant Controller of the Estate Duty, the accountable person claimed exemption of Rs. 1 lac out of the total value of the said properties. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not accept the report of the approved valuer submitted by the accountable person and referred to the Valuation Officer under Section 41 of the Act, who valued the said properties at Rs. 20,09,650/-. Taking the value of the said properties at Rs. 20,09,650/-, the estate duty was determined. The accountable person claimed the applicability of Section 36 (3) of the Act for determining the value of the properties, but was not accepted by the Assistant Controller of the Estate Duty.

(3.) The order determining the estate duty was challenged by accountable person by way of appeal before Appellate Controller of Estate Duty. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty adopted the valuation of the said properties as was done by the Assistant Controller of the Estate Duty subject to the grant of relief of Rs. 1 lac under Section 33 (1) (n) of the Act for the self occupied portion of the building. The accountable person filed a second appeal before the Tribunal and questioned the determined value of the properties on the ground that the value of the said properties should be determined in accordance with the principles of the Wealth Tax Act and under the Rules made thereunder. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal.