9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be held as stock in trade since the same treatment was being by the firm – held that order of tribunal requires reconsideration and matter remitted to AO. - 135 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2008 - DEEPAK VERMA and K. L. MANJUNATH JJ. M. V. Seshachala for the appellants. S. Parthasarathi for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA J.- Heard Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Revenue is before us against the order dated May 17, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "A" in W. T. A. No. 25/Bang/2003 for the assessment year 1998-99. This appeal has been preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties constituted wealth within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act, notice under section 17 of the Act was issued, calling upon him to furnish return of wealth. Subsequent thereof notice was also issued under section 16(2) of the Act. The assessee ultimately replied to the said notice on March 4, 2002, mentioning that the details of the properties mentioned hereinabove are not liable to wealth-tax. The Assessing Officer held that property at No. 54, Richmond Road, Bangalore, is liable to be brought to wealth-tax. The contention of the assessee that this property fell to his share after the partnership firm, in which this property was held as stock-in-trade, was dissolved. It was contended by him that even though the firm has dissolved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appeal having been allowed by the Tribunal, this further appeal is preferred by the Revenue under section 27A of the act." 6. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended before us that the order passed by the Tribunal is wholly perverse and erroneous inasmuch as it has not been held by the Tribunal that the assessee had become the absolute owner of the property on dissolution of the firm and the same had fallen to his share being partner of the firm on its dissolution and unless this finding had been recorded it could not have been held by the Tribunal that the property can be treated as stock-in-trade of the firm. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, despite examining the order passed by the Tribunal, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
