JUDGMENT
T.D. Sugla, J.
1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law at the instance of the Department under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the value of the share of the deceased in the goodwill cannot be included in the principal value of the estate ?”
2. It is evident from the question that the issue involved herein pertains to the value of the deceased’s share in the goodwill of the two partnership firms in which he was a partner. No doubt, the accountable person had initially estimated the value of the deceased’s share in the value of goodwill at Rs. 20,000 and disclosed it in the estate duty return. However, before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the accountable person took the stand that the nature of the business of the two firms was such that the firms had no goodwill. Alternatively the contention was that, since the two partnership firms were continuing, even otherwise, the deceased had no share in the goodwill of the firms. The Assistant Controller rejected both the submission of the accountable person, whereas the Appellate Controller reversed the order of the Assistant Controller on both counts. It was contended before the Tribunal that the deceased has a share in the goodwill of the two firms. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the Madras High Court’s decision reported in CED v. Ibrahim Gulam Hussain Currimbhoy [1975] 100 ITR 320; [1975] Taxation 38 (3)-73. However, following the Gujarat and Punjab High Court’s decisions in the cases of CED v. Shri Ved Parkash Jain [1974] 96 ITR 303 (P&H) and Smt. Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED [1975] 100 ITR 297; [1974] 1 ITJ 75 (Guj), respectively, the Tribunal held that the deceased had no share of goodwill in the two partnerships firms and dismissed the departmental appeal.
3. It is pertinent to mention that, as a result of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the principal value of the estate of the deceased works out to Rs. 87,759. Even if the deceased’s share in the value of the goodwill of the two firms, as taken by the Assistant Controller, is included, this value will come to Rs. 1,07,759. This apart, the Appellate Assistant Controller gave a categorical finding that, since the business of the two firms was dealing only in ordinary non-standard goodwill was not valid. Incidentally, the business of the two firms was on wholesale basis. This finding, it appears, was not challenged before the Tribunal. In any event, there is no question of law even suggested by the Department challenging this finding of fact. In the above view of the matter, even if the question of law referred to this court is answered in favour of the Department, it is not going to affect the result, as the finding of fact that there was no goodwill remains unchallenged.
4. Accordingly, we are of the view that the question referred herein is of academic interest and need not, therefore, be answered. The reference is returned unanswered.
5. No order as to costs.