Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Ram Sumarni Devi

Controller of Estate Duty vs Smt. Ram Sumarni Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 26, 1983
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/458788

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Estate Duty Reference No. 512 of 1978
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - On thesefacts found which have not been challenge, it is apparent that the good-will of the firm did not devolve or pass em to the lady and it could not be added to her wealth.

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation
Acts & sections
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 5, 7 and 40

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Controller of Estate Duty

Advocate M. Katju, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. Ram Sumarni Devi

Advocate R.K. Gulati, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 5, 7 and 40
Reported In
(1984)38CTR(All)111; [1984]147ITR233(All); [1983]15TAXMAN168(All)

Excerpt

- - on thesefacts found which have not been challenge, it is apparent that the good-will of the firm did not devolve or pass em to the lady and it could not be added to her wealth......partnership came to an end due to death of ram bharosey lal but no benefit could accrue under it of goodwill to the accountable person. further, a fresh partnership deed was entered into between ram prakash, the only surviving partner in the firm, and the accountable person, that is, wife of ram bharosey lal, on 28th december, 1971. from this it was inferred that the lady was taken as a partner in her own individual capacity under an independent contract of partnership. the tribunal found that the lady was not paid anything for the 50% share of her husband in the goodwill. on thesefacts found which have not been challenge, it is apparent that the good-will of the firm did not devolve or pass em to the lady and it could not be added to her wealth. we are supported in our view by a decision of the gujarat high court in smt. mrudula nareshchandra v. ced : [1975]100itr297(guj) . it was held that where it is specifically stipulated between the partners of a firm that on the death of any of the partners, the partnership shall not stand discharged and the deceased's heirs shall have no right whatsoever to claim any goodwill of the firm, the benefit arising to the other partners on the cesser of interest in the goodwill on the death of one of the partners cannot be measured in terms of section 40. therefore, such benefit is not liable to estate duty under section 7. we are in respectful agreement with it. in these circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, against the department and in favour of the assessee, accountable person. the assessee shall be entitled to its costs which are assessed at rs. 200.

Full Judgment

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that no goodwill passed on the death of Shri Ram Bharosey Lal either Under Section 5 or Under Section 7 of the E.D. Act, 1953?'

2. It has been found that one Ram Bharosey Lal was a partner in M/s. Dunkar Durrie Company. He died on 6th September, 1971. His wife and legal heir, Smt. Ram Sumarni Devi, filed an estate duty account and showed the net value of the estate at Rs. 1,04,340. It was not accepted by the Asst. Controller of E.D. He determined it at Rs. 1,56,447. In this computation, he added a sum of Rs. 44,511 as the value of 50% share of the accountable person for the goodwill in M/s. Dunkar Durrie Company. The Tribunal did not agree with it. It examined the terms of the partnership deed and found that under it the partnership was determinable at will. Clause 12 of the deed, which is relevant, reads thus :

'It is expressly agreed that no adjustment shall be made for alleged goodwill, if any, in case of death or retirement of any partner.'

3. Consequently, the Tribunal found that not only the partnership came to an end due to death of Ram Bharosey Lal but no benefit could accrue under it of goodwill to the accountable person. Further, a fresh partnership deed was entered into between Ram Prakash, the only surviving partner in the firm, and the accountable person, that is, wife of Ram Bharosey Lal, on 28th December, 1971. From this it was inferred that the lady was taken as a partner in her own individual capacity under an independent contract of partnership. The Tribunal found that the lady was not paid anything for the 50% share of her husband in the goodwill. On thesefacts found which have not been challenge, it is apparent that the good-will of the firm did not devolve or pass em to the lady and it could not be added to her wealth. We are supported in our view by a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Smt. Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED : [1975]100ITR297(Guj) . It was held that where it is specifically stipulated between the partners of a firm that on the death of any of the partners, the partnership shall not stand discharged and the deceased's heirs shall have no right whatsoever to claim any goodwill of the firm, the benefit arising to the other partners on the cesser of interest in the goodwill on the death of one of the partners cannot be measured in terms of Section 40. Therefore, such benefit is not liable to estate duty under Section 7. We are in respectful agreement with it. In these circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, against the Department and in favour of the assessee, accountable person. The assessee shall be entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial