9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second respondent as to the claim put forth by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible - 15314 of 2002(W) - - - Dated:- 23-5-2009 - Justice P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON Sri .Joseph Markose, for the Petitioner. Sri.George K. George, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the challenge raised against the assessment orders, seeking to assess the concerned property at Kodaikanal gifted to the petitioner at the hands of her husband, by virtue of stipulation under Section 4 (1) (a) (i) of Wealth Tax Act, has been declined. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 to P3 assessment orders were passed with reference to the assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikanal property, exemption might be granted in respect of the Madras property; was accepted and necessary directions were issued and accordingly, the Revision Petition for the assessment year 1997 - 1998 was allowed to the said extent. With regard to the case in respect of the assessment years 1998 - 1999 and 1999 - 2000, interference was declined, which in turn is subjected to challenge in the present Original Petition. 4. Referring to the mandate under Section 4 (1) (a) (i), the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Kodaikanal property was liable to be assessed only at the hands of the husband of the petitioner. The conveyance being a 'Gift', there was no "adequate consideration", which according to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position shall be applied only if the factum of acquisition of property by way of Gift is proved, which has been reiterated in the subsequent paragraph as well. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contention taken by the respondent is not liable to be accepted, particularly when there was absolutely no doubt or dispute with regard to the nature of conveyance by way of 'Gift" was very much discernible from the contents of Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 assessment orders and hence that it is not for the appellate authority to take a "U" turn doubting the same. Anyhow, the second respondent has very much accepted the case put forth by the petitioner to exempt the 'Madras property' in place of 'Kodaikanal property' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
