1976 (12) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessment of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1973-74 for which the valuation date was31st March, 1974, the question of valuation of the assessee's interest in the firm M/s Synfibre Sales Corporation arose. The WTO valued the assessee's interest therein at Rs. 1,73,636 and included the same in his net wealth which was computed at Rs. 8,71,808. 3. The assessee went in appeal to the AAC of Wealth-tax and on his behalf it was contended that he was a minor admitted only to the benefits of partnership of M/s Synfibre Sales Corporation and as such the value of his share could not be more than his capital contribution. The AAC rejected this contention on the view that the computation of the value of the assessee's interest in the partnership were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the WT Rules were not applicable in the assessee's case. The submission of the learned Deplt., Rep., however, was that the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership was entitled to share in the profits and the property of the firm and his share could be valued under S. 7 of the WT Act. The Deplt., Rep. also referred to the partnership deed dt. 18th Dec., 1971 and submitted that this partnership firm took over all the existing rights and obligations and assets and liabilities of the erstwhile business and the assessee even though a minor was entitled to share therein. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties. We find that it was a common ground that the assessee who is a minor was only admitted to the benef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ever was taken over by the new firm from the old firm became the property of the new firm. The assessee as a minor was admitted only to the benefits of this partnership and in the absence of any specific agreement that the minor would also be entitled to share in the property of the firm it cannot be held that he is entitled to such a share. The partnership deed is specific on this point that the minor shall be entitled only to his share in the profits of the firm. In the circumstances, the whole approach of the WT Officer to value to the interest of the assessee as a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership under S. 4(1)(b) of the WT Act read with R. 2 of the WT Rules was erroneous. The minor had no share in the property of the firm. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X