1990 (2) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant for residential purposes and, therefore, the value as on 1st April, 1971 was sought to be substituted by the appellant for the market value. The CWT(A) rejected this submission out right. He gave two reasons. Firstly, he pointed out that the property could not have been used by the appellant for residential purposes through out the period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation dates. Secondly, he pointed out that the exemption under s. 7(4) may not be available to the HUF may be residing at various places. 3. Before us, it was argued that physical occupation for all the 365 days was not contemplated by s. 7(4) in that the term "used" suggested only that the assessee should not have let out the property for the use of others....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt in SHRIGOPAL RAMESHWARDAS vs. ADDL. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 980 (MP) held that the benefit of s. 54 of the IT Act was not available to artificial juridical persons like an HUF. The High Court was guided by the use of the word "parent" in s. 54 in arriving at the conclusion that the benefit of that provision was available only to an individual. There is no such word occurring in s. 7(4) of the WT Act, which could lead to the inference that the benefit of the provision should be restricted to an individual assessee. Nor can the use of the word "him" in s. 7(4) lead to the conclusion that the provision applies only to living persons alone. It is not uncommon to use the third person "him" even for artificial person. In this connection, the foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dered to be auctioned in public by the court, and the auction took place on 21st March, 1977. The appellant was the successful bidder in the auction. The appellant started business as a Curing Agent for the Coffee Board w.e.f. 21st March, 1977 and the first set of accounts were closed on 31st March, 1978. The accounts of the firm were under the control and custody of Sri M.S.P. Rajes and the appellant could not secure a copy of the balance-sheet of the firm as on 31st March, 1977 for a long time. This balance-sheet was prepared in April, 1980. The wealth-tax return of the appellant for the asst. yr. 1977-78 included the figure of Rs. 50,085 as shown in the return for the asst. yr. 1976-77. This was an estimated figure. After the public auct....