2002 (7) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Revenue, the following question has been referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 : "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding hat when the assessee had reduced his share in partnership firm from 25 per cent. to 4 per cent., there was no taxable gift ?" The assessee reduced his share of 25 per cent. in a partnership firm to four per cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rlier decision in the case of Sakerchand Manilal v. GTO, held that there was no gift in this case. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. We have heard Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee. Having heard Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and having considered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the ability of the partners to devote time to the business of the firm. The gift of a part of a partner's share to another has to be established by relevant evidence and the onus of doing so is on the Revenue. In the facts of the instant case, apart from the Revenue not discharging the onus, the facts brought on record by the assessee are that the partner whose share was reduced from 25 per cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X