9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituated at Aligarh originally belonged to the partnership firm, Messrs. Kishan Lal Matrumal, formed on August 13, 1935, by five partners including Rai Sahib L. Dhanna Lal as representing the assessee-Hindu undivided family and L. Chiranji Lal representing his own Hindu undivided family. Due to certain differences the partnership business was discontinued after the year 1941. The partners referred their dispute in respect of the dissolution of the firm and settlement of accounts to arbitration. The arbitrators gave their award on June 30, 1947, which was later made a rule of the court and accepted by the parties. Under that award the oil mill at Hathras was valued at Rs. 9,50,000 and allotted to the assessee's family. The other oil mill at A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese years before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, contending that the oil mill in question had been purchased by it for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000 and that its written down value should have been determined on that basis. It was further contended that the Income-tax Officer was not within his rights to ignore the written down value determined in the preceding years and to determine it afresh on a new basis. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that the Income-tax Officer was not competent to determine the written down value in the year under appeal regardless of the written down value determined in the preceding year. The revenue then preferred appeals in respect of these years before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the Tribunal rightly held that the actual cost of the oil mill in question to the assessee remained what it was in the case of the firm of Kishan Lal Matrumal ? Learned counsel for the assessee argued the second question first. He relied upon the Supreme Court case of Kalooram Govindram v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In this case there was partition in a Hindu undivided family wherein G. & B. were declared entitled to 10/16th and 6/16th share in the properties. Each item of property which could not be divided by metes and bounds was put up for sale by competitive bidding between them. One of the items was a sugar factory which was knocked down in favour of G. for a sum of Rs. 34,00,000. After all the items of the property were thus al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased by the joint family in a remote post but would be the value given to it for the purpose of allotment or at which it was auctioned for purposes of partition. In the instant case we find that while dividing the properties between the various partners, the arbitrators valued them and after distributing them they made adjustments in the shares by directing the partner receiving property of a higher value to pay actual monetary compensation to the partner receiving property of lower value. In view of the principles laid down in the Supreme Court case mentioned above, it is clear that the actual cost of the oil mill to the assessee should be considered to be Rs. 9,50,000 and not what it was to the original firm, Kishan Lal Matrumal, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
