9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose to the assessee?" In as much as, in our opinion, the above said question does not call for reference, we are unable to accept the request of the concerned Commr. for the following reasons. 2. The assessment year involved is 1975-76 for which the relevant 'Previous Year' ended on 31st March, 1975. The assessee is Sh. Prakash Chand Jain, a specified HUF. The assessee with his four brothers became a partner in a firm styled as M/s. Jain Solvent Oil Mills which came into existence w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 in respect of which the partnership deed was executed on 3rd March, 1974. In all there were six partners in the said firm including the assessee and his four brothers. Five brothers owned substantial lands and out of the same, they bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions, in our opinion, the Full Bench Judgment in the case of A. Abdul Rahim is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case immovable property is involved whereas in the said case movable assets were involved, which did not require a registered conveyance deed for their being transferred. As far as the judgment in the case of M.A.J. Vasanaik, here also movable property was involved. That apart, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the said case did not interpret the definition involved in s. 2(47) of the Act because, in its opinion, that was not necessary to decide as to whether development rebate could be withdrawn in consequence of transfer of machinery and plant by an individual to a firm in which he became a partner. The Hon'ble Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only be academic. The application of the concerned Commr. is, therefore rejected. 5. Before we part with the matter, we may mention that at the time of hearing of the reference application, the ld. Deptl. Rep. Mr, M.P. Singh placed his reliance on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kartikey V. Sarabhai Ors (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 184: (1981)131 ITR 42 (Guj) but looking to the facts of the case the reliance is misplaced. In the instant case, the Tribunal following the Supreme Court decision came to the findings that there is no transfer because immovable property was the subject-matter introduced by the assessee in the firm in which he became partner and there was no registration of conveyance in that regard. 6. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
