9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be brought into account. Taking into consideration the average gross profit and allowing some margin for the dead stock, he increased the value by Rs. 8,000. Similarly, there were sundry debtors in money lending account to the extent of Rs. 1,98,146. For probable interest due at the time of death a further sum of Rs. 10,000 was estimated. The total addition came to Rs. 18,000. The deceased's 1/5th share amounted to Rs. 3,600. This was added to the principal value of the estate. The accountable person appealed to the Appl. Contrl. The Appl. Contrl. Confirmed these findings. 2. On further appeal, the ld. counsel submitted that there is no basis for this addition. The stocks have been valued at cost hitherto and there is no bais for val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is normally charged on defaulted debtors have to be taken note of and this is what the authorities have done. We, therefore, uphold the addition. 4. There second contention relates to a sum of Rs. 15,000 sustained by the Appl. Contrl. under s. 10 r/w ss. 27 and 2(15) of the ED Act. The Asstt. Contrl. noticed that there was a partition between the deceased and his brothers Permual Chettiar and Govindarajulu Chettiar. He found that there was an unequal partition in the sense that the deceased's share of the family properties should work out at Rs. 1,43,823 whereas what was allotted to him was Rs. 1,08,790. He held that the difference of Rs. 35,000 is a gift. He, further noticed from the memorandum that the gifts have been made to the grand- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gift to the brother's grand-daughter cannot came within the definition of relative in s. 27. Accordingly the sum of Rs. 20,000 was deleted from assessment and a sum of Rs. 15,000 being the gift to the deceased's brother's daughter was confirmed. 6. It is against this decision of the Appl Contrl. that the accountable person has come on second appeal. The ld. counsel submitted that there was no gift as it was only a partition. Sec. 27(1) r/w s. 2(15) cannot be applied to the facts of this case. It was further submitted that s.10 of the ED Act cannot be applied and reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of C.R. Ramachandra Gounder 1973 CTR (SC) 193 : (1973) 88 ITR 448 (SC) and N.R. Ramarathnam 1973 CTR (SC) 421 : (1973) 91 ITR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness was carried on by the deceased as the Kartha of a family. It is in that business there was a capital account which formed the basis of the partition. According to the narration she took possession of the same. It is only thereafter that the money was reinvested by the daughter of Perumal Chettiar in the firm in which the deceased became a partner. We hold that s. 10 clearly applies. As far as unequal partition is concerned we find that on the facts of this case the principles laid down in the case of Kantilal Trikamlal and P. Ranganayaki Ammal and others 1976 CTR (SC) 391 : (1976) 105 ITR 92 (SC) clearly applies. Accordingly we uphold the addition of Rs. 15,000 as sustained by the Appl. Contrl. by invoking the provisions of Expln. 2 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
