9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the lady, in the net wealth of the assessee, was not warranted ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to the effect that the words 'to whom such assets have been transferred' would mean to the 'spouse' indicated in the earlier part of the clause and not to the individual or person concerned who subsequently became the spouse ' ? " However, we find that the questions sought to be referred are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Philip John Plasket Thomas v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 97 (SC). As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has followed the said judgment of the Supreme Court while rendering its judgment. The dispute between the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee and Geethalakshmi took place on August 28, 1972. The Wealth-tax Officer in the assessment made for the year included the amount of Rs. 1,40,000 as hit by section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. The stand of the assessee was that since the gift took place before the marriage, section 4(1)(a)(i) was not attracted. The Tribunal on a consideration of the provisions held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Philip John Plasket Thomas v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 97 (SC), applied to the facts and, therefore, the provision in section 4(1)(a)(i) will not stand attracted. According to the Tribunal, since the actual payment of the amount to Geethalakshmi was before the marriage took place, the case is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the transfer was not postponed to the date of the marriage, section 16(3Xa)(iii) was not attracted as the transfer of the shares was made at the time when the transferee was not the assessee's wife. Though the principle of that decision squarely applies to the facts of this case, the learned counsel for the Revenue would say that in this case, the trust deed contemplates the handing over of the funds only after the marriage and, therefore, as per the terms of the trust deed, the funds will become the property of Geethalakshmi only after the marriage with the assessee and not before. But the fact remains that in this case, the funds were handed over by the trustee to Nagaraja Chetty, the father and guardian of the minor, Geethalakshmi, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
