9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted facts of the case are that on the 18th of July, 1957, a son was born to Mr. Vijayapat Singhania, the brother of the petitioner, Ajayapat Singhania, a minor. On the 28th August, 1957, the petitioner's natural guardian, Mr. Kailashpat Singhania, withdrew from Ajayapat's (petitioner's) deposit account with Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, a sum of ₹ 10,000 and ₹ 2,00,000 aggregating to ₹ 2,10,000 and placed the same to the credit of Mr. Vijayapat Singhania's "newly born son's" (Chhota Gigga) account intending it to be a fit gift to him by the petitioner. On the 20th October, 1958, the return forms required were sent by the Gift-tax Officer along with the notice under section 13(2) of the Gift- tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annexure "G" to the petition) to the Commissioner, on the 17th of March, 1960, apropos his interview and referred to the present case in these words: "It was the Income-tax Officer who pointed out to us that the gift was void in law. It was on his advice that we cancelled the gift, and it was also on his advice that we included the amount of gift in the wealth-tax return of Ajayapat Singhania and also offered interest on the amount of his assessment for income-tax. Ajayapat has been subject to gift-tax and wealth- tax in respect of the amount of gift and income-tax in respect of that interest on the amount gifted.................................There was absolutely no motive to avoid any tax. This matter has been taken up i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the appeal quoted above be treated as withdrawn." Apparently, on the same date that this application was made a revision was also filed under section 24(1) of the Gift-tax Act before the Commissioner. The Tribunal by its order dated 29th June, 1960, granted the application to withdraw the appeal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. On the 12th of September, 1960, the Commissioner of Income-tax, contrary to the assurance given, that he would dispose of the revision, if filed, on the merits as he deems justified, dismissed the revision in limine, holding that as an appeal had been filed to the Tribunal, no revision lay. Aggrieved by that order the present writ petition has been filed. The question which falls for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not yet been withdrawn. To my mind this technicality makes little or no difference. It is true that the revision had already been filed before the Commissioner and later on the same day an application was moved before the Tribunal for permission to withdraw that appeal. The fact that a revision has been filed was brought to the notice of the Tribunal in the very application for withdrawal. No secret was made of it and the Tribunal knowing that granted permission to withdraw the appeal. In any event on the day when the Commissioner came to decide the revision there was no appeal pending before the Tribunal and, therefore, rightly the Commissioner did not make any point of the fact that the revision was filed earlier on the same day when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
