9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (excluding land) at Rs. 21,00,000 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the price for which the buildings, plant and machinery is sold is only Rs. 13.15 lakhs' and is not the above finding wrong and without considering relevant materials ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law, fact and substance in holding that 'what is sold here is business as a whole' and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable, unwarranted and without materials ? " The assessment year is 1968-69. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee sold its business assets to M/s. Sudarsan Trading Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the assets were sold only for Rs. 14,15 lakhs and the income had to be determined with reference to that amount minus the value of the land. It cannot be gainsaid that the assets were transferred for the total amount of Rs. 22,00,000. That is the amount that is disclosed by the documents. One question which arises in this case is whether, for the purpose of determining the escaped income, the sale price should be considered to be the total amount of Rs. 22,00,000 as disclosed by the documents or that amount should be reduced by the liability, if any, for payment of gratuity. The second question is whether the Tribunal was right in taking into account, for the Purpose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e must be found. The question of sale price was examined by the authorities without reference to the ingredients of section 45. It was only considered with reference to section 41, though, as we stated earlier, section 41 has no relevance to the sale price. In determining what is the sale price, the authorities must necessarily consider the assessee's contention that the alleged gratuity liability was deductible. It should first be ascertained whether there was such liability. Admittedly, there was no statutory liability for gratuity. Was there a present contractual liability to pay gratuity, although payable in future, in accordance with any scheme, is a question which has to be considered. If such a present liability payable in future ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
