9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tensils consisted of 18 plates (thalis), 54 katoris, 12 glasses and 1 jug. According to the petitioner, these utensils were meant for personal use of the petitioner and the members of his family. The utensils were sold in the course of the relevant previous year for a total consideration of Rs. 81,119. These utensils had been purchased (luring the years 1958-60. The cost of these utensils was about Rs. 14,813. On the sale of these utensils, therefore, the petitioner made net gain of Rs. 66,306. In his return for the assessment year 1977-78, in Part III, the petitioner showed the net surplus of Rs. 66,306 as non-taxable capital gain on the basis of the provisions of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e silver utensils were held by him for personal use of himself and members of his family dependent on him. The silver utensils were such as were required for their personal use. The petitioner as well as members of his family were all assessees not merely under the Income-tax Act but also under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. He submitted that he belonged to a wealthy family and such silver utensils were used personally by the members of his family and himself. In the case of CIT v. Sitadevi N. Poddar [1984] 148 ITR 506, a Division Bench of this court (of which I was a member) was required to consider a similar question in a somewhat different context. In that case, the assessee had sold certain silver utensils. The court held that such utensils ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. He has held that because these articles were not normally in daily use, they could not be considered as personal effects. This appears to be an incorrect test because all personal effects need not be used daily. So long as they are meant for personal use, they will have to be considered as personal effects. Since the decision of the Commissioner is based on a misreading of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 61, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
In the premises, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.
The respondents will pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
