9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions referred to us which are set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of the case. As far as the question set out in paragraph 12 of the statement of the case is concerned, the learned counsel have stated that in view of our judgment dated 4th December, 1973, in Income-tax Reference No. 44 of 1964 [New Kaiser-i-Hind Spg. Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR 760 (Bom)], the said question must, by consent, be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. As far as the question set out in paragraph 11 of the statement of the case is concerned, a few facts need be stated. The business of M/s. Popatlal Mulji Co. was originally said to belong to the Hindu undivided family consisting of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement made before them that the capital that was so credited to the assessee's son in the partnership books was solely operated upon by the assessee's son and not by the assessee himself. The question that has been referred to us in paragraph 11 of the statement of the case must be answered on the basis of these findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the decision of this court in the case of Chimanbhai Lalbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 259 (Bom) lays down, once and for all, at any rate as far as this court is concerned, that there can be a valid gift effectuated by making entries in the books of account, if there is evidence to show that the gift was made by the donor and accepted by the donee, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the asseesee was also not relevant. This court, therefore, took the view that the gift was complete and valid, and that the interest on the amounts transferred by the assessee to his son and daughter could not be included in the income of the assessee. In my opinion, this is a very strong case in favour of the assessee before us. Mr. Joshi, however, sought to rely on two other decisions of this court, one in the case of Virji Devshi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 65 ITR 291 (Bom) in which the mere making of debit entries in the assessee's account or in the accounts of a firm of which he is a partner and opening of another account in the name of a minor son to which the amount was transferred was held not to amount to a valid gif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple reason that there was in that case a finding by the Tribunal that the entry in question had not been made in the regular course of business and was not a bona fide entry. It was on those facts that the gift was negatived. Under those circumstances, in my opinion, the decision in Paliram Mathuradas's case [1966] 59 ITR 278 (Bom) can be of no avail to the revenue in the present case. On the facts as found by the Tribunal to which I have already referred, and following the decision of this court in Chimanbhai Lalbhai's case [1958] 34 ITR 259 (Bom), which has been cited above, I hold that there was a valid gift in the present case, and I would, therefore, answer the question set out in paragraph 11 of the statement of the case in the affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
