9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the profits received on sale of silver utensils were not liable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable for assessment year 1975-76 ? " The facts giving rise to this application are as follows : The assessee is an individual. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee sold certain silver utensils for R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Supreme Court in H. H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 61 had held that " silver articles are not deemed to be 'effects' meant for personal use ". The ITO took the view that this information came to his knowledge subsequent to the completion of the original assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening but that objection was overruled. The ITO held that the aforesaid silver utensils were not personal effects and taxed the gain on the sale of the same in the hands of the assessee on that footing. On appeal by the assessee, the order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 61 (SC), what had been sold was a very large quantity of gold sovereign and old silver-rupee coins as well as silver bars. The observations of the Supreme Court in that case have to be read in the light of those facts. That judgment dealt with the construction of the term " capital asset " as used in s. 2(4A), of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The Supreme Court observed, inter alia, as follows (p. 64) : " A close scrutiny of the context in which the expression occurs shows that only those effects can legitimately be said to be personal which pertain to the assessee's person. In other words, an intimate connection between the effects and the person of the assessee must be shown to exist to render them 'personal effects'." The later obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
