TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (1) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... however, is, whether such cross-gifts would be assessable in the hands of the donors in respect of the assessment year 1978-79. The chart showing the family tree and the relationship of the various persons involved in the present appeals is given herebelow for the sake of ready reference : Genealogy Amritlal Lalubhai | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nautamlal Amritlal Harshadrai Amritlal Gajra Ben (wife) Bhadravati (wife) | | | Haresh Ketan Chetan | Smita ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indulal Lalit Kumar Chandrakant Rekha, Versha, Prag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chand- Rs. 40,000 Jagriti Rs. 20,000 Nishithakant d/o Lalit 10,000 Harsha- Kumar Rs. 10,000 Nihar drai Sailesh Rs. 10,000 10,000 -- Shashikant Rs. 10,000 Nalin Rs. 10,000 ------------------ Rs. 40,000 ------------------ (all sons of Indulal) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harsh- Rs. 20,000 Nishith Rs. 10,000 Rs. 70,000 Haresh 10,000 Lalit drai Kumar Nihar Rs. 10,000 Ketan 10,000 ------------------- Rs. 20,000 (both sons of Chandrakant) Chetan 10,000 Smita 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favour of his minor children in this case. The transfers are made by each of the assessees in favour of their respective nephews. It is only in cases where there are cross gifts it has been held that there is an indirect transfer. When the word 'indirectly' is not there in the section as it stood prior to 1-4-1976 the cross gifts cannot be brought within the purview of section 4(1)(a)(iii). It is only after 1-4-1976 such cross gifts will come within the mischief of section 4(1)(a)(iii). The language is plain and no further elucidation is necessary. The decision of the Bombay High Court also supports the view taken though they were dealing with section 4(1)(a)(ii). The Legislature was fully aware of the provisions of section 16 of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of section 4(1)(a)(iii). She rejected the above contention of the assessee by pointing out that the evidence as to the alleged minors who had attained majority during the accounting year under consideration had not been placed on record and, therefore, she could not accept the assessee's contention that some minors had become major during the assessment year in question. 7. The assessee's learned counsel assails the aforesaid findings of the AAC. According to him, the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(iii) could apply in respect of those cross-gifts only, which had been made on or after 1-4-1976 and inasmuch as the gifts in the present case have been made prior to 1-4-1976, the amended provisions of sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We have carefully examined the facts of the present case and the rival submissions. Section 4(1)(a)(iii), so far as it is relevant for our purpose reads as follows : "In computing the net wealth of an individual, there shall be included, as belonging to that individual-- (a) the value of assets which on the valuation date are held-- (iii) by a person. . . . to whom such assets have been transferred by the individual, directly or indirectly, otherwise than for adequate consideration for the immediate or deferred benefit of the individual, his or her spouse or minor child . . . or both, or" [Emphases supplied] A bare reading of the aforesaid clause will show that it is not stated in it that transfers made prior to a given date w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in this regard. The order of the AAC, in our opinion, is correct on this position and we accordingly uphold it. 13. The alternative contention of the assessee, however, still remains. According to the assessee some of the minor children had become major during the accounting period ending on the valuation date, and that, therefore, it could not be said that on the given valuation date, the indirectly transferred assets were being held by the minor children of the donors in question. This contention, in our opinion, goes to the root of the matter and it would be in the interest of substantial justice if the assessee is allowed to lead evidence in this regard. It is true that the assessee did not or could not lead evidence before the AAC....