Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) This Reference raises an interesting question relating to the applicability of Sections 5 to 23 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in relation to a settlement made by one Rambhai Patel of Uganda. The settlement was made on 26th June 1941, and the subject matter of the settlement consisted of 160 shares in a limited company called Central Cotton Trading Company (Uganda) Limited. I t appears that prior to the date of settlement a declaration of trust was made by Rambhai Patel on 19 t December 1939 settling on trust his six annas share in a partnership business carried on in the name of Central Cotton Trading Company Uganda for the benefit of his two minor sons, Mahendra and Manubhai. The partnership thereafter was converted into a limited company, namely, Central Cotton Trading Company (UGANDA) Limited and in respect of the six nanas share settled on trust, 160 fully paid up shares were allotted.80 shares bearing numbers 279 to 358 being allotted in the name of Purushottam Patel in trust for Mahendra and 80 shares bearing Nos. 1 to 80 being allotted in the name of Rambhai Patel in trust for Manubhai. Rambhai Patel thereafter made a declaration of trust in respect of these 160 shares by the settlement 26th June 1941 and in terms of settlement and with a view to effectuating it. Rambhai Patel and Purushottam Patel transferred the respective 80 shares standing in their names to the trustees with the result that a trust was constituted in respect of these 160 shares on the terms and conditions contained in the settlement. The settlement was for the benefit of Mahendra and Manubhai, the minor sons of Rambhai Patel, with certain limitations over in case of death of either, Rambhai lived for several years after making of the settlement and died on 17th October 1953. We are, however, not concerned with the position arising on the death of Rambhai Patel. What concerns us in this Reference is the position arising on the death of Manubhai. Manubhai died on 7th June 1954 when was only about 16 years of age and he did not leave behind him any widow or issue. As a matter of fact, he was not married at the time of his death. On the death of Manubhai a question arose whether estate duty was exigible on any part of the trust property. The Revenue claimed that on the death of Manubhai one half of Manubhai in the trust property passed with in the meaning of S. 5 and that estate duty was, therefore, chargeable the principal value of the said share. The claim of the Revenue was contested byMahendra who the person accountable for the estate duty within the meaning of the Act and there were two grounds on which Mahendra sought to repel the claim of the RevenueIn the first place, Mahendra contended that there was no passing of property within the meaning of Section 5 on the death of Manubhai, since Manubhai had no interest in the trust property vested in him which could pass on his death. The second contention was that in any event even if there was passing of property with in the meaning of Section . Section 23 applied to the facts of the case and property, could not therefore, be deemed to pass so as to attract the charge of estate duty. There were also one or two minor contentions urged on behalf of Mahendra but it is not necessary to refer them since they were not independent arguments but represented merely one or the other aspect of the main contentions and they would be covered by what we say in regard to the main contentions. The Deputy Controller of Estates Duty, Bombay negative the contentions urged on behalf of Mahendra and held one half share of Manubhai in the trust property passed on his death under Section 5 and that it was not exempted under Section 23 and that the principal value of the said one half share namely, Rs.10,43,050/- was, therefore liable to be included in the principal value of the estate for the purpose of charge of estate duty. Mahendra thereupon preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue. The only attack in the appeal was directed against the addition of Rs.10,43,050/- being the principal value of one half of the trust property which, according to the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay, passed on the death of Manubhai under section 5. The same contentions were advanced and they were rejected by the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue held on a construction of the provisions of the settlement that each of the two beneficiaries namely, Manubhai and Mahendra was entitled to the whole of the income of his share of the trust property and that though surplus income in excess of the amounts spent by the trustees on the maintenance and advancement of each beneficiary was to be accumulated until he attained the age of twentyfive, such surplus belonged to him as his absolute property and in the event of his death before twenty-five, was heritable by his heirs. On this construction of the provisions of the settlement, the Central Board of Revenue applied the well-established principles of law relating to charge of estate duty and observed that since there was a change in the persons beneficially interested in the one half share of Manubhai in the trust property, in that the moment before his death he was entitled to the whole income and the moment after his death, other persons namely, his brothers were entitled to the whole income, the said one half share in the trust property passed on his death within the meaning of Section 5. The argument of Mahendra based on Section 23 was repelled by the Central Board of Revenue by holding that the interest of Manubhai under the settlement was an interest in possession since he was entitled to the whole income of his one half share in the trust property and that it could not, therefore, be said that his interest determined by reason of his death before it became an interest in possession so as to bring the case within the exemption contained in S 23. The Central Board of Revenue in this view of the matter dismissed the appeal. Mahendra being aggrieved by the decision of the Central Board of Revenue applied for a reference of certain questions of law which according to him arose out of the order of the Central Board of Revenue under Section 64(1). The Central Board of Revenue was however of the opinion that only one question of law arose out of its order and it accordingly referred the following question of law, namely:-