9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer passed under section 104 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that all the persons counted as one by the Income-tax Officer are not relatives of one another in terms of section 2(41) and, therefore, such persons cannot be grouped as one person under clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sons, and grand children of Shri V. P. Gupta were not relatives of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65,080 (iv) Shareholdings belonging to the group of S.N. Gupta 8,611 (v) Shareholders of Syal group 5,460 He was of the opinion that 50 per cent. of the voting power was in the hands of five persons and, therefore, the assessee was a company in which public were not substantially interested. Additional super-tax was levied for both the years. It is to be noted that the orders under section 104 of the Act for the assessment years in question were passed on March 22, 1968 and March 30, 1970, respectively. The assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short, "the AAC") submitting that the shareholding of 65, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut because the wife and children of D. R. Gupta were not relatives of V. P. Gupta within the meaning of section 2(41). Similarly V. P. Gupta and his grandchildren were not encompassed. The result was achieved because under the statute each of the sons of D. R. Gupta was a relative vis-a-vis only his parents, children and brothers but, not vis-a-vis his nephews and nieces. Alternatively, the Revenue's contention that the interpretation given to the expression "relative" was not correct did not find favour with the Tribunal. The stand of the Revenue was that all family members of V. P. Gupta and D. R. Gupta should be construed as family. As D. R. Gupta, his wife and grandchildren were relatives, likewise V. P. Gupta and his sons were relative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, shall be treated as a single person." "(41) 'relative', in relation to an individual, means the husband, wife, brother or sister or any lineal ascendant or descendent of that individual." Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 2(18) is categorical and definite that unless two or more persons are relatives of one another, they cannot be treated as a single person. The expression "relative" as appearing in section 2(41) is in relation to an individual and persons who are included in the category of "relatives" have been spelt out in the provision itself, i.e., husband, wife, brother or sister or any lineal ascendant or descendant of that individual. The expression "that individual" is the key to the intention of the Legislature. It ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
