Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an appeal lay to the Appellate CED against the order made by the Asstt. CED under s. 61 of the ED Act, 1953 ?

High Court Of Calcutta

Controller Of Estate Duty vs. Sri Patrick Gillam Sandy’S Lumsdaine

Section ED 62(1)(a)

Suhas Chandra Sen & Baboo Lall Jain, JJ.

Matter No. 250 of 1977

9th February, 1989

Counsel Appeared

A. C. Moitra & S. K. Mukherjee, for the Revenue

SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :

The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this Court under s. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (“the Act”) : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an appeal lay to the Appellate CED against the order made by the Asstt. CED under s. 61 of the ED Act, 1953 ?”

The dispute in this case was with regard to the valuation of shares of Williamson Magon & Co. Ltd. In the original estate duty assessment, the Asstt. CED had made the valuation at Rs. 101.61 per share. This order was rectified by an order under s. 61 of the Act dt. 28th Dec., 1972. Under the rectification order, the shares were valued at Rs.

162.27 per share.

Another point argued before the Tribunal was that any appeal against this order should not have been entertained by the appellate authority because the order was not appealable. It was contended that no appeal lies against the order made under s. 61 and that the order of the Appellate CED should not have been cancelled. The Tribunal considered s. 62(1) (a) of the Act, which is as under : “62. Appeal against orders of Controller.—(1) Any person— (a) objecting— (i) to any valuation made by the Controller, or ……… may, within thirty days of the date of the receipt of the notice of demand under s. 73, appeal to the Appellate CED in the prescribed form which shall be verified in the prescribed manner.”

The Tribunal came to the conclusion, considering the provisions of s. 62(1)(a), that if any objection was raised to the valuation made by the Controller, then an appeal was entertainable. In this case, the dispute is with regard to the valuation of the shares of Williamson Magon & Co. Ltd. and, hence, an appeal has been preferred with respect to the valuation made by the Asstt. CED under s. 62(1)(a)(i). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the accountable person to the Controller could not be dismissed in limine and that the Appellate CED was competent and was perfectly justified in entertaining the appeal.

Having regard to the provisions of s. 62, we are of the view that the Tribunal has correctly dealt with the issues raised before it.

In that view of the matter, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs.

BABOO LALL JAIN, J. :

I agree.

[Citation : 186 ITR 411]

Malcare WordPress Security