EDR 2/01 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE No. 2/2001
Shri Damodar Gopaldas Chandak, Nagpur. APPLICANT
.....VERSUS.....
The Controller of Estate Duty, Nagpur. RESPONDENT
None for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) This is a reference under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act.
2. As per the facts of the case Shri Gopaldas was a partner in a firm known as M/s Chandak Electric Company, wherein he had 35% share at the time of his death. Gopaldas died on 19.04.1972 leaving behind him large dutiable estate. The deceased owned individual properties and was also a member of the Hindu undivided family. The deceased had 1/7th share in the bigger H.U.F. The Estate Controller under the Estate Duty Act found that the partnership firm was located in a busy business locality and the firm was engaged in electrical goods on wholesale basis. The Estate Controller found that the firm was receiving very good profits and for the assessment years 1970 to 1972-73, the firm had earned profits of Rs.3,21,203/-. The Estate Controller held that the firm had established goodwill and considering the share of the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2017 00:53:58 ::: EDR 2/01 2 Judgment at 35% of the goodwill, a sum of Rs.28,105/- was included by the Assistant Controller in the dutiable estate. On appeal, the addition of the amount for the dutiable estate was deleted by the Appellate Controller by relying on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, reported in 1996 ITR 303. The Appellate Controller held that the Estate Controller was right in holding that the firm had goodwill. The Appellate Controller agreed that there was goodwill but, held that the amount of goodwill was not quantified and, therefore, he deleted the addition of Rs.28,105/-. The department was aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Controller and it filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By an order, dated 13.07.1976, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the department after holding that the goodwill, if any, of the business in which the deceased was a partner, passes on his death. Since the Appellate Controller had not decided the other alternate contention raised on behalf of the accountable person as he had deleted the whole of the addition on the footing that the goodwill of the business did not pass on the death of the deceased, after setting aside the order of the Appellate Controller, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Appellate Controller for deciding the other contentions raised by the accountable person. A reference is made by the Hon'ble Tribunal of the question, "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share of the goodwill of a deceased partner in the assets of a firm passes on his death under the Estate Duty Act ?"
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2017 00:53:58 :::
EDR 2/01 3 Judgment
3. Though at the relevant time, there was no judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the Bombay High Court on the question referred to us, the question involved in the reference stands answered against the accountable person and in favour of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the judgment reported in (1986)26 Taxman 348 (SC) (Controller of Estate Duty Versus Smt.Mrudula Nareshchandra), held after considering the judgments rendered by the various High Courts including, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Gohatti High Court, Bombay High Court, Madras High Court and others, that the share of the deceased in the partnership did not evaporate or disappear on the death of the deceased and it went together with the other assets and the same should be valued in the manner contemplated under Rule 7(c) of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Annaraj Mehta and Deoraj Mehta. The question was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the revenue after clearly recording a finding that the share of the deceased in the partnership firm including his share in the goodwill is required to be valued under Rule 7(c) of the Estate Duty Rules and included in the estate, for the levy of estate duty even though goodwill as such cannot be valued. As the question referred to us stands answered in favour of the revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be necessary to again answer the same. As per the judgment of the Income ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2017 00:53:58 ::: EDR 2/01 4 Judgment Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Controller would be free to decide the other contentions raised by the accountable person before him.
4. The reference stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
\
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2017 00:53:58 :::