9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that the provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ( the Rules ), were applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and that, therefore, the value of the assessee s property situated at 18, Golf Links, should have been valued in accordance with that rule. The learned departmental representative has opposed the consideration of the additional ground, as according to him it does not arise out of the combined order of the AAC dated 8-3-1983. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ground raised being purely legal, it should be entertained and decided. It is further submitted by him that the issue being covered by the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned authorised cousel fo the assessee, that there had been partial partition in the family in December 1973 by virtue of which the property at 18, Golf Links, was allotted in equal one-third share to the three coparceners of the HUF. In other words, the property ceased to be owned by the members of the HUF as joint tenant and instead came to be enjoyed by them as tenants-in-common with effect from December 1973. According to the learned counsel, the value of the property situate at 18, Golf Links, was, therefore, not liable to be assessed in the hands of the HUF notwithstanding the fact that the partial partition had not been recognised for the purposes of income-tax. Mr. Sachdeva further submits that the provisions of the Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and, therefore, there was no question of excluding the value of the property situate at 18, Golf Links, from the hands of the assessee-HUF. In support of his later contention, the learned departmental representative has placed reliance on a decision in the assessee s own case in Parshotam Lal Sood Bros. v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 739 (MP). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Even though we would agree with the learned authorised counsel of the appellant that the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the wealth-tax laws with regard to case of partial partition were different at least till the assessment year 1980-81 and that the ratio and decision in the case decided by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in M.L. Ramachandra Setty S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty allotted is definite and is a portion. In this case there is no material on record to suggest that any definite portion of a property has been specifically allotted to any coparcener. In our opinion, the latter valuer, relied on by the assessee, is not enough for holding that a physical division of the property is not possible and the property could have been divided in the manner intimated in the aforesaid judgment but it had not been divided. The above finding of fact given by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision in Parshotam Lal Sood Bros. case (supra). According to us, there had been no proper partial partition either in the eyes of the Income-tax law or in the eyes of Hindu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
