9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows: The assessee, Smt. Angira Devi, is the only daughter of the late Sbri Raghumal. Her mother was Smt. Bhagwati Devi. The assessee was married to Shri Hans Raj Gupta and had four sons, namely, Desh Raj, Shiv Raj Rajinder Kumar and Mahender Kumar. Raghumal had several immovable and movable properties. By a will dated September 4, 1926, be bequeathed certain specified amounts to several persons named in the will and appointed his wife and daughter (assessee) and his two nephews as residuary legatees. Several persons were appointed as executors of the will including one Shri Gopal Das Modi. Raghumal died on September 5, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons in respect of the joint properties till the assessment year 1972 73. On November 9, 1972, a deed of partition of the joint properties was executed between the assessee and her four sons. The joint properties were valued at Rs. 4,20,000 after deducting the value of overriding charges. One property, i.e., one situated at Ajmeri Gate was valued at Rs. 1,69,500 and was allotted along with certain other properties to the four sons of the assessee in equal shares as per Schedule C to the partition deed. Certain other properties were allotted to the assessee as per Schedule B. The four sons of the assessee constituted a partnership on December 9, 1972, and each of them contributed his share in the Ajmeri Gate property as his capital in the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty in question. It was also submitted that section 52 had no application as there was no money transfer involved. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the assessee and her four sons held the properties as co-owners after 1954 and not as members of an association of persons. He held that the assessee had a 1/2 share in the property at Ajmeri Gate which was transferred to her four sons and the case was covered by section 45 of the Act. It was also held that section 52(2) of the Act was clearly applicable on the basis of the fair market value determined. The matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (for short the "AAC"). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that an association of persons continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also there was no exchange. Each one of the co-sharers who had an antecedent title did not acquire a new title and no conveyance was involved in the process. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. On being moved for reference as aforesaid, the question as set out above has been referred. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal erroneously proceeded to examine the case as if it was relatable to a case of co-owners. We find that the Revenue's case all through was that the assessee and her four sons were co-owners. The deed dated November 9, 1972, was treated by the Income-tax Officer as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
