TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ?" The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee, Kishan Chand Agarwal, was a partner in the firm Shri Hari Industries, Bharatpur, as a karta of the Hindu undivided family. He had 50% share in the profits of the said firm. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, there was change in the constitution of the said firm and Serva Shri Sushil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, minor sons of the assessee's brother, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and they were given 14%, 13% and 13% shares, respectively. Each of the said minors also contributed Rs. 4,000 towards the capital in the said firm. As a result of the admission of these minors to the partnership, the share of the assessee was reduced from 50% t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 4,000 each was contributed by the minors. The Tribunal has, however, not dealt with this aspect of the matter. The assessee has failed to appear even though he has been duly served. We have heard Shri V. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue. Shri Singhal has placed before us the decision of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1987] 166 ITR 124, whereby the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1974] 97 ITR 393, on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, has been reversed. The Supreme Court has held that once goodwill is taken to be property and with the admission of the two minors to the benefits of partnership in respect of a fixed share, the right to the money value of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares allotted to them. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has expressed the view that the transfer of the share of the assessee to the extent of 20% to the minors was without any consideration, and, therefore, it amounted to a gift. The Tribunal has, however, not examined this aspect of the matter. The reference is, therefore, allowed and the question referred by the Tribunal is answered as indicated below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding as it did only on the basis of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1974] 97 ITR 393, that no gift was made by the assessee to the minors. The Tribunal should reconsider the matter and while doing so, it should exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
