9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee converted the land into stock-in-trade of the business of purchase and sale of immovable properties on and from June 1, 1975, and contributed the land as stock-in-trade to the partnership on June 16, 1975. 2. Whether there was a transfer of the capital asset by the assessee under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when it became a partner in the firm from June 16, 1975, and thus became liable to pay capital gains under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Conversion of Land into Stock-in-Trade The Tribunal held that the assessee did not convert the land into stock-in-trade on June 1, 1975, and contributed it to the partnership on June 16, 1975. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, claimed that it converted an area of 4,273 sq. yards into stock-in-trade and revalued it at Rs. 3,84,570. The Income-tax Officer disbelieved this claim, stating there was no cogent material to show the conversion. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's submission, but the Tribunal disagreed, holding that the land remained a capital asset until June 16, 1975. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 2: Transfer of Capital Asset and Liability to Pay Capital Gains Tax The Tribunal interpreted section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, concluding that the assessee's act of bringing the capital asset into the partnership constituted a transfer. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 clarified that such a transaction, while a transfer under section 2(47), does not attract capital gains tax under section 45. The Supreme Court held that the consideration for the transfer is the partner's right to share in the profits and assets of the firm, which cannot be precisely valued at the time of transfer. Therefore, section 48, fundamental to the computation of capital gains, does not apply, placing such transactions outside the scope of capital gains taxation. Judgment: The High Court answered question No. 2 in favor of the assessee, stating that the transfer of the capital asset when the assessee became a partner did not attract capital gains tax under section 45. The court emphasized that the Revenue never claimed the transaction was a sham or camouflage. The court cited the Supreme Court's observations that genuine transactions should not be scrutinized for tax evasion unless there are clear indications of sham or illusory transactions. Consequently, the court did not permit any inquiry into the genuineness of the transaction, as no such case was presented by the Revenue. Question No. 1 was not answered as it was not pressed by the assessee's counsel. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
