9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the agricultural land vested in the two sons before the passing of the Court decree and mutation? Analysis: The Commissioner of Gift-tax sought a reference under s. 26(1) to the High Court regarding the Tribunal's order on the ownership of agricultural land by the assessee's two sons. The assessment year was 1971-72, where the assessee's two sons filed a declaratory suit claiming a share of ancestral land, which was decided on the same day as the assessee did not contest. The GTO treated the decree as collusive and subjected the value of the share to gift-tax. The AAC found a gift but for a different assessment year. The Tribunal, based on the plaint and decree, upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the gift did not occur during the relevant accounting period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's argument of collusive suit contradicted their stance on family partition and mutation, leading to the confirmation of the AAC's finding. The Tribunal's decision was based on the factual finding that any alleged gift was reliant on the mutation, which, in turn, was based on the collusive decree derived from the plaint indicating a family partition two years prior. The Tribunal concluded that the gift did not relate to the assessment year under consideration, affirming the AAC's decision. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's request for reference, stating that the finding was a pure question of fact, and thus dismissed the reference application.
|
