1. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAG, J.-In this application made under section 59-A(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1950, the Controller of Estate Duty has referred the following question:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was any evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the amount of dower money fixed at Rs. 40,000 was reasonable thereby interfering with the amount determined by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty at Rs. 15.000, in view of the provisions of section 45(i) of the Estate Duty Act, overlooking the agreement, dated 1-12- 1966 produced by the respondent."
2. The respondent is the accountable person. Late Suleman son of Qasim Joe died leaving behind morn than Re. 2,00,000 estate. The respondent claimed Rs. 40,000 as her dower due from the Estate left by the deceased who was her husband. Her claim was based on agreement, dated 1-12-1966 whereby the dower money was raised to Rs. 40,000.
3. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not allow the said claim of dower on the basis that no evidence was produced to show that on 10-5-1944 when the marriage was solemnised the spouses were having such income and mode of life that dower could be fixed at about Rs. 40,000 and further on the ground that the dowers in the community of the deceased were nominal or near about that. And he fixed only a sum of Rs. 15,000 as the amount of dower which was based on the basis that more than Rs. 3,00,000 were the assets left by the deceased.
4. The Appellate Tribunal by its order, dated 11-3-1971 upheld the claim of Rs. 40,000 dower on the basis that the agreement, dated 1-12-1966 had been completely overlooked by the Assistant Controller and the reason assigned by the Assistant Controller was not tenable and that the claim of dower was reasonable. They also observed that the deceased's income and mode of life could be gauged from the assets declared for the Estate Duty purposes.
5. Under section 45(2)(;) reasonable dower means a dower which is not inconsistent with the income and mode of life of spouses at the time of marriage to which the dower. Relates.
6. We do not find any finding of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to the effect that the dower of Rs. 40,000 was inconsistent with the mode of life of the spouses at the time of their marriage. And, therefore, we arc of the view that the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was not based on correct consideration as the Community traditions is note relevant for the purposes of section 45. Moreover, tie inconsistency in income and mode of life of the family and the dower agreed between this spouses had to be clearly brought out before the dower claimed was dis-- allowed. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was correct in its effect, and they were justified to consider the dower as reasonable in view of the assets left by the deceased in the absence of any other evidence in respect of the income and mode of life of the parties in 1944. The question, therefore, is answered in affirmative and this application is disposed of.