T. Desai, H. S. Parihar, for the respondent.
The accountable person objected to the inclusion of the value of the 1/3rd share in the trust properties in the companyputation of the value of the estate that passed on the death of Safiabai.
Under the terms of the trust deed, the settlor was entitled to the net income of the trust properties during his life lime.
But, later on the accountable person sought to withdraw the appeal.
5,73,000/ .
D. Karkhanis, P. L. Juneja, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated October3 and 4,.1968 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Estate Duty Tax Reference No.
Further, he gave him numberice requiring him to show cause why the entire value of the trust estate should number be included in the companyputation of the value of the estate that passed on the death of Safiabai.
Aggrieved by that decision, the accountable person went up in appeal to the Appellate Controller.
That companytention was rejected and the entire trust property was companysidered as the property that passed on the death of the deceased.
The account able person companytended that the trust property did number belong to the deceased and as such the same cannot be said to have passed on her death.
Safiabai, as mentioned earlier, died on 6 10 1955.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Controller and restored that of the Assistant Controller.
The value of the estate left by her was determined by the Assistant Controller at Rs.
It held that only 1/3rd of the trust estate Passed on the death of the deceased.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEGDE, J. The appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in a Reference under S. 64 1 of the Estate Duty Act to be hereinafter referred to as.
Out of the remaining 2/3rd, 1/3rd was to be paid to Mohomedbhai and the remaining 1/3rd was to be entrusted to Mohomedbhai for being utilised for The maintenance of the two wives and the children of the settlors youngest son Salebhai, who had died before the trust deed was executed.
According to the Assistant Controller the estate left by the deceased companysisted of two times a of her individual properties and b 1/3rd of the trust properties.
the Act .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against the order of the Appellate Controller, the accountable person went up in appeal to.
The Appellate Controller refused to him permission to withdraw the appeal.
1 of 1968.
The settlor prescribed in the trust deed that after the death ,of Safiabai The trustees divide the trust properties in such a manner that one equal share i.e. half share shall be given to my eldest son, Mohomedbhai, and if he has died before that then, that share shall be given to his children and wife and that division shall be made according to dictates of my religion and the other half share shall be given to the wife and children of Salebhai in such manner that the two anna share shall be given to each of his two wives and the remaining twelve annas shall be distributed amongst his Salebhais children according to the dictates of my religion and after doing so this trust shall companye to an end.
Under that deed three trustees were appointed.
1, which reads Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole of the Trust estate was to be included in the assessment or only a portion thereof and if so what portion Herein we are companycerned with the estate of Bai Safiabai the widow of Eusufalli Badri who died on 6 10 1955.
The material facts of the case may number be stated, One Eusufalli Ebrahimji settled upon trust certain immovable properties and leasehold lands by an indenture date 15 7 1938.
The High Court opined that only 1/3rd of the trust estate of which the deceased was one of the trustees passed on her death.
companysequently the High Court did number answer that question.
4,15,000/ .
The companyrectness of that companyclusion is challenged by the Department.
Thereafter at the instance of the Department, the question set out earlier was submitted to the High Court seeking its opinion thereon.
The High Court answered the first question in favour of the accountable person, In view of that answer, it thought it unnecessary to answer the second question.
The remaining clauses in the trust deed are number relevant .
Therein the Tribunal referred partly at the instance of the Department and, partly at the instance of the accountable person three questions of law said to arise from its order, for the decision of the High Court The accountable person at whose instance, the last question was referred informed the High Court that he does number desire to have any answer to that question.
But that objection was overruled by the Assistant Controller.
1096 of 1970.
They were Eusufalli the settlor , his wife Bai Safiabai the deceased and their eldest son Mohamedbhai, the accountable person.
Consequently the valuation made by the Assistant Controller was enhanced by Rs.
According to the Department, the entire Trust estate passed on the death of the deceased.
the Appellate Tribunal.
After his death, the income of those properties was to be divided into three equal shares 1/3rd of the income was to be appropriated by Bai Safiabai during her life time.
