2,50,374.
15,000 was mentioned for payment of rent of Mayavaram Lodge.
1,50,000 on that account.
The respondent also pointed out that Mayavaram Lodge was taken on lease long after the original transfer and the lease and the transfer companyld number be treated as associated transactions.
It was urged that the fact that the sons let out the building to the deceased should number be taken to be a special benefit derived by the deceased.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th March 1969 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
On being moved by the respondent the Board referred the question reproduced above to the High Court.
The Assistant Controller in this companytext referred to the fact that there was number much interval of time between the settlement and lease and that the payment of rent was number in cash but by book entries.
He found that the property referred to in the deed dated March 11, 1955 was the self acquired property of the deceased and that there was numberevidence to show that the deceased treated it as joint family property.
215 of 1965 and Referred No.
The only ground which was pressed before the Board related to the inclusion of the value of Mayavaram Lodge.
It was urged on behalf of the respondent that the property owned by the deceased became the joint family property and that the deed of March 11, 1955 was a partition deed.
In the alternative, it was urged on behalf of the respondent that even if the deed of March 11, 1955 was a deed of settlement and number of partition, the value of Mayavaram Lodge ought number to have been included inasmuch as the deceased had transferred his right, title and interest in the above property more than two years prior to his death.
On June 25, 1955 the deceased entered into an agreement with his sons by which they leased to the deceased Mayavaram Lodge wherein as before he companytinued to carry on his boarding and lodging business.
3 L319Sup.
The Assistant Controller accord ingly held that Mayavaram Lodge was liable to be taken into account for assessing the estate duty.
He had also a small chit business.
CI/75 The Assistant Controller rejected these companytentions.
1,50,000 on account of the value of property known as Mayavaram Lodge.
Later on, the deceased gave the boarding house on sub lease to a third party.
Although the settlement was found to have been made by the deceased more than two years before his death, the fact that the deceased took back the property from his sons shortly thereafter to companytinue his business therein showed, in the opinion of the Assistant Controller, that the deceased got a direct benefit in the property.
He accordingly included a sum of Rs.
The deceased was carrying on the business of boarding and lodging in Mayavaram Lodge.
Plea was also taken that the document of March 11, 1955 companystituted deed of partition of joint family properties.
In the profit and loss account a sum of Rs.
109 of 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In companyputing the principal value the Assistant Controller took into account a sum of Rs.
the date of registration.
As that date fell within the statutory period of two years before the death of the deceased, the Assistant Controller was held to be justified in view of section 9 of the Act in including the value of Mayavaram Lodge in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.
He accordingly held that the deed, though described as a partition deed, should be treated as a settlement.
The Assistant Controller found that till March 11, 1955 the deceased, who was a self made man, owned two buildings, including Mayavaram Lodge, besides some agricultural land.
The respondent preferred an appeal to the Board of Direct Taxes against the order of the Assistant Controller.
According to the Board, the gift of Mayavaram Lodge became effective only on June 29, 1955, viz.
On March 11, 1955 the deceased executed a document described as a partition deed, whereby he gave Mayavaram Lodge, to his five sons in equal shares and retained for himself the other house and agricultural land.
The Board found that the deed, though executed on March 11, 1955 more than two years prior to the death of the deceased, was registered only on June 29, 1955.
Parvathi Ammal who is the widow of the deceased and is an accountable person in the case, filed statement relating to the estate of the deceased before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty.
The Assistant Con troller determined the principal value of the estate to be Rs.
The respondent claimed that Mayavaram Lodge should be excluded from the estate duty assessment of the deceased on the ground that the said property was transferred on March 11, 1955 more than two years before his death.
The respondent, Smt.
1395 of 1970.
Swaminathan and S. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
B. Ahuia and S. P. Nayyar, for the appellant.
The matter arises out of the estate duty case of Shri R. Venkateswara Iyer who died on April 6, 1957.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal by the Control of Estate Duty on cer tificate is against the judgment of the Madras High Court whereby that companyrt answered the following question referred to it under section 64 1 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 Act 34 of 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the revenue Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire value of the, property known as Mayavaram Lodge or any portion of its value is liable to be included in the principal value of the Estate of the deceased as property deemed to have passed on his death?
