JUDGMENT
1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), at the instance of applicant, Smt. Mira Roy, wherein the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act were not applicable in respect of money, i.e., Rs. 3,22,464, payable under the group insurance plan of the United Nations and the same forms part of the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased ?”
2. The facts, briefly stated are that Dr. A. Roy, husband of the applicant, was in the service of the United Nations Organisation at Tehran and while he was in such service, he participated under the Group Insurance Plan of the said Organisation. Under the said plan, Dr. Roy had appointed the applicant and her son as the beneficiaries to the policy in equal shares. On the death of Dr. Roy, a sum of Rs. 3,27,464 was received by the designated beneficiaries, namely, the applicant and her son, Suprit Roy, under the said Group Insurance Plan. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,27,464 in the principal value of the estate of the deceased passing on his death and did not accept the claim of the applicant for making a separate assessment under Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty accepted the claim of the applicant and excluded the amount of Rs. 3,27,464 as reduced by the rebate from the principal value of the estate of the deceased and directed that a separate assessment should be made for that amount keeping in view the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act treating it as an estate by itself. The Tribunal on appeal did not accept the finding recorded by the Appellate Controller and while dealing with the question as to whether the case was covered by Section 34(3) of the Act, the Tribunal has held that to determine the said issue, at first a finding has to be recorded as to whether the property In the policy is one in which the deceased had no interest. The Tribunal also held that the Appellate Controller had not recorded any finding on this issue. In the circumstances, the Tribunal directed that the determination of this issue should be restored to the file of the Appellate Controller for recording a clear finding on this issue. Although the Tribunal has made this observation during the course of the judgment, in the operative part of the said judgment the Tribunal has not given any direction remanding the matter to the Appellate Controller for giving a finding on this issue and has, on the other hand, after setting aside the order of the Appellate Controller, restored the order of the Assistant Controller.
3. Shri Kalia, the learned counsel for the applicant, has urged that the Appellate Controller had recorded a finding on the question as to whether the deceased had any interest in the property, namely, the policy, and he has invited our attention to the order passed by the Appellate Controller. We have carefully perused the said order, but we are unable to agree with the said submission of Shri Kalia. Moreover, the Tribunal has considered the said matter and has come to the conclusion that no finding had been recorded on this issue by the Appellate Controller and the matter should be reconsidered by the Appellate Controller. In these circumstances, it was necessary that the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the Appellate Controller for recording a finding on the issue as to whether the deceased had any interest in the property, namely, the insurance policy. The question which has been referred to us by the Tribunal with regard to the applicability of Section 34(3) of the Act, can be decided only after a finding on this issue has been recorded and in the absence of such a finding, it is not possible for this court to answer the question referred. In the circumstances, the reference is returned unanswered. It will be open to the Tribunal to remand the matter to the Appellate Controller in accordance with the directions contained in its judgment for giving a finding on the issue as to whether the deceased had interest in the property, namely, the insurance policy. There is no order as to costs.