TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (11) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,New Delhi. There were certain constructions also on the said property. The GTO proceeded on the footing that Smt. Maya Devi transferred a portion of the said property measuring 1415 sq. yds. in favour of her son Shri Roshan Lal Mehta for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 which was adjusted against a loan of Rs. 2,60,000 taken by her. According to the GTO, the valuation of the portion so transferred was Rs. 2,09,379 and, therefore, there was a gift to Shri Roshan Lal to the extent of Rs. 59,379. The GTO further noted that about 1800 sq. yds. of land was transferred by the deceased Smt. Maya Devi to the wife and daughter of her another son Shri Roop Lal Mehta through a Court decree and this amounted to a gift. The value of this alleged gift has been ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this case was not issued against a dead person or served on a dead person and the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this point is erroneous. A copy of the notice was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee and the notice as addressed clearly indicates that it was a notice intended and addressed to S/Shri Rooplal Mehta and Roshanlal Mehta as legal heirs of Smt.Maya Devi. Admittedly, Smt. Maya Devi had died earlier and these two persons were sons of the deceased Smt. Maya Devi. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notice was issued to a dead person. As regards service, the learned counsel for the assessee told us that this notice was received by one Shri S. Kumar s/o. Shri Roshan Lal Mehta aforesaid. The learned CIT(A) h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hati) in which it was held that where a notice under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, was issued to only one of the several legal representatives, the assessment was not valid. In this case, as already stated the notice was addressed to the two legal representatives of the deceased. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the assessee that there was any other legal representative. As already stated no such point was raised before the CIT(A) and the assessee has not filed any cross-objection and, in our new, therefore, this new contention cannot be raised at this stage. In this case as observed by the learned CIT(A) in response to the notice Shri Roshan Lal Mehta filed the return as a legal representative of the deceased. He participated in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) has held that there was no gift and having heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee we are of the view that this finding by the learned CIT(A) is correct. The first gift is stated to be to the wife and daughters of Shri Rooplal Mehta. According to the GTO the deceased Smt. Maya Devi transferred a portion of the property in suit to the said person through a Court decree dt.15th May, 1970. The wife and daughters of Shri Rooplal Mehta had filed a declaratory suit against Smt. Maya Devi. A copy of the plaint has been placed at pages 17 to 19 of the paper book. According to the averments made in the plaint, portion of the said property was given to the plaintiffs in a family partition. By th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not tried to find out the date on which the alleged family partition took place. Therefore, no gift was established to have been made in the relevant previous year. 11. As regards, the other gift alleged to have been made to Shri. Roshanlal Mehta, the learned GTO has stated that Smt. Maya Devi transferred a portion of the property in suit vide registered agreement of sale dt.17th July, 1979. An agreement to sale is not a transaction that results the transfer of the property. It is merely an agreement to transfer certain properties for certain consideration and unless the sale deed is properly executed and registered the property continues to vest in the owner (See Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan vs. CWT (1986) 57 CTR (SC) 89 : (1986) 162 I....