9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred in favour of Shri Sewal Singh a piece of land measuring 12 kanals and 3 marlas stating its value to be Rs. 16,000. In respect of the aforesaid land, the ITO fixed its value at Rs. 20,000 and included the same as the assessee HUF's income holding that the said land had been conveyed by the Nawab in token of the service rendered by Shri Sewal Singh in his capacity as general attorney to the Nawab for the purpose of selling the lands belonging to the Nawab. In appeal, filed before the AAC, the assessee-HUF raised the plea that the land in question had been gifted to the assessee-HUF by the Nawab in token of his love and affection. The learned AAC accepted the assessee's appeal. Being aggrieved, the revenue went in appeal to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the market value thereof did not constitute income assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family? 2. If question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, was the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, right in law in holding that the transfer of the land in question by the Nawab in favour of Shri Sewal Singh was by way of remuneration for his services rendered as a general attorney ? 3. If question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue, is the said finding in the assessee-Hindu undivided family's case sustainable in the face of the gift-tax assessment order dated 16th February, 1973, made in the Nawab's case for the assessment year commencing on 1st April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the land gifted to Shri Sewal Singh was given to him in lieu of the services rendered by Shri Sewal Singh to the Nawab as his general attorney. The Tribunal held that had Shri Sewal Singh not functioned as the general attorney of the Nawab, there was no occasion for gifting the land to him. The Tribunal further observed that the Nawab must be knowing many other persons but he chose to gift the land to Shri Sewal Singh only because he functioned as general attorney. We are unable to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. The contents of the gift deed, which is annex. " I " with the paper book, clearly make mention that since Shri Sewal Singh in his capacity as general attorney served the donor honestly and faithfully and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Mahesh Anantrai Pattani v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 481 came to the conclusion that the gift of rupees five lakhs made by the Maharaja of Bhavanagar to the Chief Dewan of his native State was a gift and could not be termed as income in the hands of the Dewan. The" observations made by their Lordships in that case aptly apply to the facts of the present case. We may point out that the learned AAC relied on the decision of their Lordships in Mahesh Anantrai Pattani's case [1961] 41 ITR 481 (SC) but the Tribunal held that the principles laid down in that case were not applicable to the present case. We are unable to agree with this finding of the Tribunal. For the reasons recorded above, question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
