TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich they could relinquish. Therefore, in the absence of possessing any legal right, the question of relinquishment does not arise for consideration. Therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee was the owner of the land and building, is just and proper. It is also justified in holding that the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act are applicable to the facts of the case. So far as placing reliance by the respondent on the report received from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar is concerned, the same is in accordance with law. That the fair market value of the capital asset has been determined based on the rules as specified by the Sub-Registrar. Even when repeated r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er a separate Sale Deed in the year 1973. They constituted a partnership in the name of M/S.Srinivasa Enterprises along with 12 others in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 26.11.1976. A Theatre by name Gopal Theatre was constructed in the premises in question. Sri.N.A.Venugopal and N.A.Ravigopal retired from the partnership with effect from 6.6.1978. The partnership firm continued. It was reconstituted on several occasions. In the year 2001, four partners remained. The Theatre and the land were sold to one Sri T.Prasanna Kumar by virtue of two separate registered sale deeds on 14.2.2001 by the partners as well as the erstwhile partners of the firm. The firm was also dissolved on the same day in terms of the Deed of Dissolution dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the partners before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also rejected. Hence, this appeal. 3. By the order dated 17.3.2010, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the firm, M/s.Srinivasa Enterprises, was the owner of the capital asset viz. land and building comprised in Gopal theatre situated at Tank Road, Doddaballapur? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable to the facts of the present case? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the revenue. 6. Heard learned counsels. 7. The contention of the assessee is that the erstwhile partners namely Venugopal and Ravigopal were the only owners of the land and therefore the income that is assessed in the name of the firm, requires to be deleted. However, the material on record would indicate that both of them had furnished a joint letter dated 28.11.2006 wherein they stated that they had contributed their share as capital towards the partnership firm, running Gopal Theatre along with land and building. Therefore, the partnership firm, namely, M/S.Srinivasa Enterprises has become the absolute owner since that date, namely, 26.11.1976. Venugopal and Ravigopal have retired from the partnership firm with effect fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, merely because they have stated in the sale deed that they have relinquished their right does not pre-suppose that any right existed in them as on that date. The partners could relinquish only which they possess. The sale deed was executed on 14.2.2001. The partners retired on 6.6.1978. Therefore, they had no right at all which they could relinquish. Therefore, in the absence of possessing any legal right, the question of relinquishment does not arise for consideration. Therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. 11. It is also indicated at page No.10 of the deed that, the so called settlement was arrived at in view of the pending suit. It is pleaded that a suit in O.S.No.210 of 1992 was filed before the Court of Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar who was authorised to furnish the same. 14. So far as the sale is concerned, whether the entire consideration were received in the hands of the assessee or not becomes a secondary question. It is only an adjustment by the assessee with the other persons. The same can be ascertained from the recitals in the sale deed, which would indicate that in order to settle certain disputes, the shares have been given to the said persons. Therefore, the assessee alone is liable to pay tax on the sale consideration. Therefore, the contention of the assessee on that issue also, cannot be accepted. 15. We are also of the view that even so far as upholding of the levy of tax insofar as the furniture and fixtures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
