*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE NO.10/1978 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1213/1978 Vijaykumar Sriniwas Ram. ..Applicant -Versus- Controller of Estate Duty. ..Respondent ........... Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel a/w Ms.Vasanti Patel, for the Applicant. Mr.D.K.Kamwal a/w Mr.H.D.Pandey, for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED, JJ. Date : 02nd March, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2 The Tribunal referred the following question for opinion of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act:- “Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.3,29,203/- was rightly included in the estate duty assessment as part of the estate of the deceased?” 3 So far as the above question is concerned, the same arises out of the factual matrix which is not in dispute. The above *2* issue was also debated before the Tribunal. It was considered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.2 of its judgment which reads thus:- “2. The next ground relates to the claim for the exclusion of a sum of Rs.3,29,203/- from the dutiable estate on the ground that the said amount represented a debt which had become bad long before the death of the deceased and could not, therefore, be said to have formed part of the estate. The full facts relating to this claim have been set out by the authorities in their respective orders. It represents a debt due from M/s Naraindas Chunilal, a proprietary concern of the accountable person himself. In disallowing this claim the authorities have proceeded on the footing that even though the debt may have become time barred under the law of limitation, nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the deceased had all along shown it as an asset in her wealth-tax assessments and the accountable person had likewise claimed it as a subsisting liability in his personal wealth-tax assessments, he could not now be heard to say that it was a bad debt and hence should not be included in the estate of the deceased. We are in complete agreement with the stand which have been taken by the authorities on this issue and we accordingly have no hesitation in rejecting the ground which has been raised in this behalf in the present appeal.” 4 Having seen the findings recorded by the Tribunal we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the recovery of debt was not barred by the law of limitation in view of the fact that the proprietor of M/s Naraindas Chunilal, the accountable person, in a letter written to the Assistant Controller on 03.11.1972 had admitted liability of Rs.3,29,203/- by way of *3* loan taken by it. Thus, the acknowledgment by the debtor was well within time. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Thus, the question referred is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5 So far as the Notice of Motion taken out by the Applicant for consideration of the additional questions is concerned, in our view, the said question can hardly be said to be a question of law. It is nothing but finding of fact based on evidence. Thus, the Notice of Motion is without substance. It is disposed of as rejected. 6 Reference, accordingly, stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)