Supreme Court Upholds Inclusion of Gifted Fixed Deposit Receipts in Estate of Deceased Under Section 10 of Estate Duty Act, 1953. Donor Retained Control by Renewing Receipts in Joint Names, Thus Not Excluding Herself from Benefit, Rendering Amount Liable to Estate Duty.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

Purnabai, the deceased, held three fixed deposit receipts with the State Bank of Bikaner on April 1, 1953. She intended to gift the amounts to her grandson Suryakant, a minor. The receipts were renewed in the joint names of Purnabai and Suryakant, payable to either or survivor. On August 16, 1953, Purnabai executed a deed of gift in favour of Suryakant, which was accepted by Suryakant's father as natural guardian. Purnabai informed the bank of the gift and stated that the receipts should remain in joint names until Suryakant attained majority. Despite the gift, Purnabai continued to present the receipts for renewal upon maturity and obtained fresh receipts in the joint names. One receipt was encashed on August 25, 1955, and the proceeds were reinvested in Suryakant's name alone; the other two were renewed again in joint names. Purnabai died on February 15, 1956. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the value of the three receipts and interest in her estate under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, on the ground that the donee had not assumed immediate possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor. The Central Board of Revenue and the Rajasthan High Court confirmed the inclusion. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that for a gift to be excluded from estate duty under Section 10, the donee must immediately assume bona fide possession and enjoyment and thereafter retain it to the entire exclusion of the donor and of any benefit to the donor. The Court found that by continuing to hold the receipts in joint names with the right to encash them, Purnabai retained important benefits; there was no evidence that she acted merely as guardian or benamidar for the minor. Consequently, the gifted amounts were deemed to pass on her death. The Court also held that the proceeds of the receipt encashed within two years of death and reinvested in the donee's name were similarly includible. The appeal was dismissed and the Revenue’s assessment upheld.

Headnote

A) Estate Duty - Gift - Section 10, Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Condition for Exclusion from Estate - For gifted property to be excluded from estate duty, the donee must immediately assume bona fide possession and enjoyment and thenceforward retain it to the entire exclusion of the donor and of any benefit to the donor; if the donor retains any benefit, the property is deemed to pass on the donor's death (Paras 718 B, 718 F).

B) Estate Duty - Gift of Fixed Deposit Receipts - Joint Names with Either or Survivor Clause - Retention of Benefit - Where the donor made a gift of fixed deposit receipts to a minor grandson but thereafter continued to obtain renewal of the receipts in joint names of herself and the donee, payable to either or survivor, and the donor herself presented the receipts for renewal and could have encashed them, she retained important benefits; the donee did not assume exclusive possession and enjoyment; the amounts were correctly included in the estate of the deceased under Section 10 (Paras 718 F, 718 G).

C) Estate Duty - Gift - Encashment and Reinvestment Within Two Years of Death - Amounts reinvested in the name of the donee alone after encashing a gifted receipt but within two years of the donor's death were also liable to be included in the estate of the deceased (Para 718 G).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the amount of the fixed deposit receipts gifted by the deceased was correctly included in her estate as property deemed to pass on her death under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the amounts of the fixed deposit receipts were correctly included in the estate of the deceased because the donor retained important benefits by continuing to hold the receipts in joint names with the right to encash them. The donee did not assume immediate bona fide possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor. The amounts were deemed to pass on the donor's death and were liable to estate duty.

Law Points

  • Legal points not extracted
  • Gift
  • estate duty
  • possession and enjoyment
  • section 10 Estate Duty Act
  • 1953
  • exclusion of donor's benefit
  • bona fide assumption by donee
  • retention of benefit
  • joint names
  • either or survivor
  • deemed to pass on death
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1969 LawText (SC) (07) 2

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 1967

1969-07-31

Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Grover, A.N.

Citation not available, 1970 AIR 322, 1970 SCR (1) 712, 1969 SCC (2) 380

M.C. Chagla, B.D. Sharma, M.D. Bhargava for appellant; Jagdish Swarup, Solicitor-General, T.A. Ramachandran, R.N. Sachthey, B.D. Sharma for respondent

Satyanarayana Modi

The Controller of Estate Duty, Delhi and Rajasthan, New Delhi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Assessment of estate duty on amounts gifted by the deceased through fixed deposit receipts.

Remedy Sought

The appellant, representing the estate of the deceased, sought exclusion of the gifted amounts from the dutiable estate.

Filing Reason

The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the amounts under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, on the ground that the donor had not been entirely excluded from possession and enjoyment.

Previous Decisions

The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held the gifted amounts includible; the Central Board of Revenue confirmed the order; the High Court of Rajasthan answered the referred question in the affirmative, upholding inclusion.

Issues

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 6,85,193/- was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on her death under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant contended that Purnabai had done everything possible to divest herself of her interest in the money, retained no interest, and in obtaining renewal of the receipts in joint names she was merely a benamidar or acting on behalf of the minor grandson. The appellant argued that the bank had notice of the gift and could not have parted with the money except for the benefit of the minor, so the donor retained no possession or enjoyment. The appellant relied on Imperial Bank of India, Madras v. S. Krishnamurthi (A.I.R. 1933 Madras 628) to assert that a bank with notice of a trust cannot permit a breach of trust. The respondent contended that the donor continued to hold the receipts in joint names with the right to encash them, thus retaining a benefit, and that the donee had not assumed immediate exclusive possession and enjoyment.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, property gifted is not excluded from estate duty unless the donee immediately assumes bona fide possession and enjoyment and thenceforward retains it to the entire exclusion of the donor and of any benefit to the donor. If the donor retains any benefit, the property is deemed to pass on the donor's death and is includible in the estate.

Judgment Excerpts

The section clearly means that if in respect of any property which is gifted, bona fide possession and enjoyment is not immediately assumed by the donee and thenceforward retained by him to the entire exclusion of the donor of any benefit to him therein the property gifted shall not be excluded from the estate subject to estate duty. In the present case P retained important benefits in herself in the fixed deposit receipts. There was also no evidence that in obtaining the receipts in the joint names P acted as a guardian of S nor that she was a benamidar of S. Though the third receipt was encashed during the life time of P, and the amount was invested in the name of S alone, the encashment and reinvestment were within two years of the death of P and the amounts so reinvested were liable to be included in the estate of P.

Procedural History

The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty assessed the estate of the deceased and included the gifted amounts under Section 10. The Central Board of Revenue confirmed the assessment. The Board referred a question of law to the High Court of Rajasthan, which answered in favor of the Revenue. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.

Acts & Sections

  • Estate Duty Act, 1953: Section 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Inclusion of Gifted Fixed Deposit Receipts in Estate of Deceased Under Section 10 of Estate Duty Act, 1953. Donor Retained Control by Renewing Receipts in Joint Names, Thus Not Excluding Herself from Benefit, Rendering Amount Li...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant’s Appeal in Rent Control Eviction Case, Upholding High Court’s Interpretation of Proviso to Section 57(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. High Court Correctly Held That the Proviso’s Exception for Premises to Whi...