1979 (10) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d which was claimed as a deduction. The Asstt. CED also found that the deceased had made a gift of Rs. 30,000 in 1959. He was of the opinion that to the extent of the amount gifted, the liability was required to be scaled down under s. 46(1) and he accordingly disallowed the deduction of Rs. 21,790 claimed by the Accountable Person. 2. On appeal, the Asstt. CED found that the current account of the wife of the deceased showed that while the deceased had made advances to his wife in the years 1960--61, 1962-63 and 1964-65, there were debit balances in the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, and 1968-69 and credit balances in the years 1969-70 to 1974-75. He therefore came to the conclusion that the deceased had a running account with his wif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and for full consideration. s. 46 imposes a further limitation namely that if in respect of such a debt the value of any consideration consisted of (a) property derived from the deceased; or (b) consideration given by any person amongst whose resources there was at any time included, any property derived from the deceased; the debt is to be scaled down to the extent of the property derived from the deceased. In the present case, the Asstt. CED has found that there was no direct nexus between the amount of Rs. 30,000 gifted in 1959 by the deceased to his wife and the subsequent amounts outstanding in the current account between the deceased and his wife. Admittedly, the consideration given for the loan taken by the deceased and outstanding a....