1978 (4) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment years the ITO found that no income from dividends in respect of certain shares was shown by the assessee. He also found that some of those shares were also sold in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70 and capital gains had arisen from such sales and it was not shown by the assessee. Being asked by him to explain the position, the assessee filed an affidavit. She stated in that affidavit that she was a member of a HUF styled as "Chandra Kumar Agarwalla, HUF" of which her husband was the karta and other members were Dipika and Gitika. She also stated in that affidavit that in or about 1965 all those shares valued at Rs. 1,90,027.39 were duly transferred to Dipika and Gitika in their capacity as members of the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... favour of the HUF in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case on the question whether there was a gift in favour of the HUF. Since the Supreme Court, at page 735 of the report, held that the question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court was comprehensive enough to cover the point whether there was a gift in favour of the HUF, Mr. Ray argues that the aforesaid question before us is also wide enough to cover the said issue. Mr. Agit Sengupta, learned counsel for the revenue, argues that in the Supreme Court case the assessee was admittedly the owner of those properties and it was her capital investment and share i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad rejected it, for it has referred the only question which has been set out earlier. Mr. Sengupta further submits that as the assessee did not make any application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, against the rejection of the aforesaid question No. 2, Mr. Ray is not entitled to take the aforesaid plea. Mr. Sengupta cites the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 and CIT v. Kirkend Coal Co. [1969] 74 ITR 67 in support of his aforesaid submissions and also argues that since the shares belonged to the assessee's minor daughters, the question of making any gift by the assessee cannot arise and, in any event, the gift, if any, is on the face of the facts recorded in the statement o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X