A SUHASINI Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four questions are referred to us under s. 64(1) of he E.d. Act, namely :

(2.) Of the four questions, questions 2, 3 and 4 are concluded against the accountable person by the decision of this court in CED v. Smt. p. Leelavathamma [1978] 112 ITR 739, as has been fairly stated by the counsel for the accountable person. The learned counsel, however, stated that this court has granted leave to appeal to the Supreme court against the aforesaid decision and that the matter is now pending in the Supreme Court. He, therefore, requested that we should also grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in so far as those three questions are concerned. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to refer to or deal with the said three questions. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to question No. 1.

(3.) The deceased, A. Raghurami Reddy, constituted a coparcenary along with his father and brother. The father died on 8/06/1959, leaving behind him his widow, two sons, including the deceased, A. Raghurami Reddy, and two daughters. After the death of the father, the widow and the two daughters executed a relinquishment deed with respect to the share to which they were entitled under the Hindu Succession Act in favour of the two sons. On 2/12/1963, the two brothers divided their properties among themselves.