1988 (4) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Whether the proportionate value of the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property should be included under section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the entire ALV referable to Rs. 36,516 or only the ALV relating to Rs. 10,000 should be included in the income of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Proportionate Value of ALV under Section 64(1)(iv)

The court examined whether the proportionate value of the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property should be included under section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had transferred a house to his wife for a consideration of Rs. 49,000, with Rs. 36,516 coming from the sale of shares initially purchased with a Rs. 10,000 gift from the assessee. The Income-tax Officer included the entire ALV in the assessee's income. The Tribunal, however, concluded that only the ALV corresponding to Rs. 10,000 should be included.

Issue 2: Entire ALV Referable to Rs. 36,516 vs. ALV Relating to Rs. 10,000

The primary question was whether the entire ALV referable to Rs. 36,516 should be included in the income of the assessee or only the ALV relating to Rs. 10,000. The court referenced section 64(1)(iv) and Explanation 3 of the Income-tax Act, which aim to prevent tax avoidance through asset transfers to spouses. The court noted that the section includes income arising directly or indirectly from assets transferred to a spouse without adequate consideration.

The court analyzed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mohini Thapar v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 208, where it was held that income derived from assets purchased with gifted money should be included in the transferor's income. The court found a direct transfer of Rs. 10,000 from the assessee to his wife and an indirect income from the house purchased with proceeds from shares bought with the gift money, establishing a proximate connection between the income and the transfer.

The court also discussed CIT v. Pelleti Sridevamma [1976] 105 ITR 887, where a time lag of eight years between the gift and the sale of the house indicated no proximate relationship between the gift and the income. However, the court distinguished this case, emphasizing the direct and proximate connection in the current case, similar to Mohini Thapar.

Conclusion

The court disagreed with the Tribunal's conclusion and accepted the Revenue's contention. It held that the entire ALV attributable to Rs. 36,516 should be included in the income of the assessee, rejecting the assessee's argument that only the ALV proportionate to Rs. 10,000 should be included. The reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.