TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is an individual. During the assess ment year 1978-79, the accounting period ended on May 31, 1977, the assessee filed a return of income on July 20, 1978, declaring the value of taxable gift in respect of 72.1 cents of land at Rs. 39,260. The assessing authority, namely, the Gift-tax Officer, in the course of the assessment, noticed that the assessee had during the previous year ended May 31, 1977, transferred at cost 17,500 shares out of 27,500 shares hold by him in Kanthimathy Plantations to his close relations, namely, father, mother and brother. The assessing authority also noted that the cost price per share was Rs. 6.05 and that the market value of the share on the date of transfer was Rs. 21.89. Before the assessing authority, the assessee contended that he purchased shares on behalf of the persons mentioned above. The assessing authority did not accept the said contention of the assessee and brought the difference between the market value of the share, namely, Rs. 21.89, and the cost price, that is, Rs. 6.05, to get tax by resort to section 4(1) of the said Act determining the value of gift at Rs. 2,77,200. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kshmana Sarma [1989] 178 ITR 211. Shri P. K. R. Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department, assailed the findings of the Appellate Tribunal available at paragraph 7 of the said order as one unsupported by any material and also contended that the said findings of, fact have been rendered on a misdirection of law. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the order are supported by material. The material, according to learned counsel for the assessee, is a letter dated September 12, 1980, submitted before the Gift-tax Officer in relation to the assessment of the assessee under the Income-tax Act for the year 1978-79, where, according to learned counsel, the assessee had contended that the father, mother and brother of the assessee wanted to purchase the shares in Kanthimathy Plantations that they did not have sufficient funds for the purchase of these shares, that they requested the assessee to pay the price and hold the shares temporarily and transfer the shares to them immediately the funds were arranged by them and that the price was paid and the shares were got tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sferred from the apparent owner to the real owner there is no question of transfer for consideration--whether inadequate or not--and the question of applying section 4(1)(a) or section 4(1)(b), or for that matter even section 4(1), does not arise. The fact that the assessee had shown in his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1977-78, the shares in question as his own shares cannot be held as a militating factor against the assessee. It is only due to a misconception of the law." We have perused the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority. We do not find that any of the said authorities have accepted the submission of the assessee based on the letter dated September 12, 1980. The Tribunal unfortunately has stated that the lower authorities have not disputed the submissions of the assessee that the shares in question were purchased by the assessee on behalf of his father, mother and brother that they did not have sufficient funds for the purchase of these shares that they requested the assessee to pay the price and hold the shares temporarily and to transfer the shares to them immediately when the funds were arranged by them and that the price was pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also and we do not find anything in the order to show that the assessee had produced the letter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also. The said letter is also not appended in this paper book. Learned counsel for the Department submitted that only admission of fact is evidence and that the submission of the assessee is not evidence at all. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 324 and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Killick Nixon and Co. v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 714. It is a well-accepted position for which we do not think any authority is required. Needless to say that certain self-serving statement made in a letter by itself is not proof of the fact stated therein unless the said submission is supported by some evidence. In this case, apart from the reliance made on the statement contained in the letter dated September 12, 1980, there is absolutely no material in support of the said statement. In this situation, learned counsel appearing for the Department, referred to u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot be held as a militating factor against the assessee cannot be sustained. It clearly militates and falsifies. the case pleaded before the authorities and before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee further contended that even if the two questions referred to are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department still the real question involved in this issue cannot be solved, as the Department has not chosen to raise a question regarding the ultimate findings entered into by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the Department in reply thereto has submitted before us that the findings of fact entered by the Tribunal, namely, that the shares were purchased by the assessee for and on behalf of his father, mother and brother and that there was an understanding to transfer the same at cost price as and when they make available the required funds, are not based on any material and that they rest on mere conjectures and surmises. He further contended that since the said findings have to be ignored and the necessary consequence is that the case put forward by the assessee cannot be accepted and, consequently, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
