9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s time, was about 25 years of age and she was employed as a company secretary earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1,300. In these circumstances, by an indenture dated December 5, 1969, the parties agreed in writing as follows : (1) Shanta Sujan agrees to marry Indra Chatterji within three months. (2) In consideration of her having so agreed, Indra Chatterji under takes to make over to Shanta Sujan, before the marriage, 20,000 shares of Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd., of the face value of Rs. 10 each, and to have such shares registered and transferred in the books of the company. These shares, thereafter, will belong to her and constitute her exclusive property and Indra Chatterji shall have no right or claim to them of any kind. (3) The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he effect that the transfer of shares was not merely in consideration of Miss Shanta Sujan's promise to marry the assessee but also in consideration of her giving up her career in order to provide consortium to the assessee and to enable her to fulfil her legal obligation to maintain her dependent parents. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee to raise these new grounds but did not permit the assessee to produce in evidence an affidavit to the above effect which was sworn by Miss Shanta Sujan. From the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. From the decision of the Tribunal the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso the promisee acting or refraining from acting in a certain way. Hence, giving up of a career can amount to consideration for transfer of shares. It was not necessary to establish that the assessee had received any benefit by way of consideration. Before we consider these submissions, we must first examine the findings of fact as stated by the tribunal because we cannot reopen findings of fact. In the present case, the Tribunal, after having considered all the material before it, has come to a finding that the consideration for the transfer of shares by the assessee to Miss Shanta Sujan was not any agreement by Shanta Sujan to give up her job or career nor was there any material to establish that the shares were transferred to enable h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in money or money's worth. Various considerations may go into promise of marriage such as natural love and affection of the parties for each other. These are not capable of being evaluated in money or money's worth. In fact, it is not seriously contended by the learned advocate for the assessee that consideration of marriage can be considered as consideration in money or money's worth. Mr. Mistry relied upon the decisions in CGT v. J. N. Marshal [1979] 120 ITR 613 (Bom) as also CGT v. Rm. S. Ramanathan Chettiar [1969] 74 ITR 758 (Mad). These cases, in our view, are not relevant to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal that the transfer of these shares is covered by the definition of "gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
