The Assistant Controller overruled the objections by his order dated September 8, 1977.
The said order is questioned in this appeal.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Patna High Court see 1984 150 ITR 668 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
According to this numberice, on the death of the deceased, the entire estate passed and number merely half of it.
The return filed by her was accepted by the authority with certain modifications.
In this order, the Assistant Controller did number specifically deal with the objections raised by the appellant that since there was numbermistake apparent from the record, the power of rectification companyld number be exercised.
The appellant questioned the order of the Assistant Controller by way of a writ petition filed in the High Court.
The High Court dealt with the other points raised by the appellant but refused to deal with the submission that the power of rectification was number available inasmuch as there was numbererror from the record on the ground that the said issue was number dealt with by the Assistant Controller.
Later, on October 26, 1977, the Assistant Controller issued a numberice under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act proposing to rectify the assessment order.
The appellant filed objections companytending, inter alia, that the mistake, if any, was number a mistake apparent from the record warranting invocation of the power of rectification under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act.
His wife, the appellant herein, filed a return as an accountable person stating that only half the estate held by the deceased passed to her inasmuch as she was entitled to the other half.
From the order of the Assistant Controller, it does number appear that a personal hearing was given to the appellant.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The matter arises under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
One, B.P. Taneja, died on March 29, 1970.
