9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindu undivided family). The karta of this Hindu undivided family was a partner, in his representative capacity, in a firm, Hari Chand Hans Raj, having 31 per cent. share therein. This firm owned some land. The difference between the appreciated value of this land, as assessed by the assessee and as assessed by the Revenue, was Rs. 90,000 and thus out of this appreciated value, a sum of Rs. 27,900 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Act, 1957 ?" The first part of the question regarding the assessee being a Hindu undivided family and, therefore, not being treated as a partner of the firm, within the meaning of section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, now stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485, where it was held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, be clarified that the Tribunal gave no finding that concealment of the said amount of Rs. 27,900 was not proved on facts. In this view of the matter, while answering the reference in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, we have no doubt that the Tribunal would now determine the fact of concealment of wealth by the assessee, if permissible in law. This reference is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
