TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential house at Napier Town, Jabalpur, of the assessee sold in the year 1986 at Rs.18,00,000, of which the value was estimated on March 31, 1984, at Rs.14,00,000. Net taxable wealth was found at Rs.15,74,657. For the assessment years 1982-83 to 1992-93 in question, notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was served on the assessee on October 12, 1992. In reply to the notice under section 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, it was contended that the wealth of the assessee has been disclosed in the case of Hindu undivided family following the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee, therefore, has not filed any return under section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act at the relevant time. It appears as against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Tribunal. The Tribunal in view of its own decision in the assessee's own case in the income-tax matter vide I. T. A. Nos. 43 to 46/Jab of 1994 passed in November, 1998, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. These nine appeals have been preferred against the common order dated September 16, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirming the orders of Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). In the present appeals, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the house has been wrongly treated to be that of a Hindu undivided family. There is release deed in favour of the assessee executed by two brothers of the assessee; Shri Choudhary Sahsanan Pratap Rai and Sheshnarayan Rai. This release deed was executed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased by registered sale deed dated March 12, 1947, in the name of three brothers. Rs.16,000 were advanced by the father of the assessee to the seller in the shape of an FDR, which was in the name of the assessee's father in Calcutta National Bank, which was endorsed in favour of the seller and this fact finds place in the sale deed itself and only a sum of Rs.1,000 was advanced jointly by the three brothers. Thus, it appears that for the purchase of the property the major source of money came from the father. Thus, we do not find any justification in the submission that the nucleus fund of the Hindu undivided family is not established as the source of purchase. There was no division in the family at the relevant time of purchase. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
