Controller of Estate Duty Vs Gangabishan Champalal Bajaj and Another

Bombay High Court 19 Oct 1992 Estate Duty Reference No. 13 of 1975 (1992) 10 BOM CK 0065
Bench: Division Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Estate Duty Reference No. 13 of 1975

Hon'ble Bench

V.A. Mohta, J; B.P. Saraf, J

Advocates

C.J. Thakar, P.M. Chandurkar, for the Appellant;

Acts Referred
  • Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Section 73, 73A

Judgement Text

Translate:

V.A. Mohta, J.@mdashAt the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Nagpur, the following questions have been referred u/s 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :

"(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the order of assessment passed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in respect of the estate of the deceased, Mathuradas Gulabchand Bajaj, was barred by limitation on April 29, 1972, u/s 73A of the Act ?

(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Controller cancelling the assessment made by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ?"

2. The late Shri Mathuradas Bajaj died on July 23, 1961. His sons voluntarily filed an estate duty account on October 25, 1971, i.e., after more than ten years of the death. Assessment was completed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on April 29, 1973. The Appellate Controller cancelled the assessment as time-barred u/s 73A of the Estate Duty Act. The said order was maintained by the Tribunal.

3. The provisions of section 73A are quite clear. Initiation can be either by a notice or by filing a return. Neither of the two has taken place within five years of the death of the deceased.

4. Under the circumstances, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. No order as to costs.

From The Blog
Business Structure Playbook for Indian Residents
Nov
15
2025

Court News

Business Structure Playbook for Indian Residents
Read More
Supreme Court: Tenants Must Pay Rent Despite Pending Appeal, No Relief Without Stay Order
Nov
15
2025

Court News

Supreme Court: Tenants Must Pay Rent Despite Pending Appeal, No Relief Without Stay Order
Read More