TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 2.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee is one of the daught4ers of late Maharaja of Mysore Sri J.C.Wadiyar. There was partial partition in the family of Sri J.C.Wadiyar in which some properties were allotted to his son Sri S.N.Wadiyar in June, 1974. The Mysore Palace and Lokranjan Mahal were retained by Sri J.C.Wadiyar, which belonged to his minor HUF consisting of himself and his two wives and the daughters. The remaining properties of the joint family continued to be with the family of which Sri J.C.Wadiyar was the Kartha. On 12-09- 197, Sri S.N.Wadiyar, one of the co-parceners of the HUF filed a partition suit claiming none of properties remaining in the HUF can be shared by Sri J.C.Wadiyar, who had enjoyed all his propertie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 26-11-1998 in ITA No.29/Bang/1990 set aside the assessment to be done afresh for which specific direction was given. 3. The Gift Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Bangalore vide her office letter dated 13-02-2006 offered an opportunity to the learned AR to appear before her and furnish the details. The GTO after elaborate discussion in her order held that in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, in GTA NO.29/Bang/1990 dated 26-11-1998 held that the gift tax liability of the assessee is to be computed at Rs. 1,41,81,620/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CGT(A). The CGT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds; "1. The order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e term 'transfer' under the Gift Tax Act did not include partition or family settlement. 7. Without prejudice, the compromise deed dated 07-08- 1980 did not result in any relinquishment of right when the alleged appellant donor accepted that he she had no right in the property and what remained belonged only to the alleged donee and consequently there is no element of gift which is amenable to gift under the Act. 8. The ld.CGT(A) ought to have appreciated that he maxims nemo dat qui non habet (no one can give who dares not possess) and nemo dare protest quod non habet (no man can give that which he has not) were squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 9. Without prejudice, the ld.CGT(A) ought to have appre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to bring on record all the necessary facts deliberate on the various legal issues and to state the correct legal position. We order accordingly". 8. It was the contention of the counsel that the AO must have made a 'fresh assessment' within the time limit prescribed u/s 16A(3) of the GT Act, 1958 and not an 'assessment or re-assessment' that is referred to under the provisions of section16A(4) of the GT Act, 1958. The learned counsel raised objection stating that the assessment or reassessment order dated 31-03-2006 passed by the CGT(A) was passed beyond the limitation imposed u/s 16A(3) of the GT Act. Hence, it was prayed that the order of the learned CGT(A) should be declared as null and void. 9. We have heard both parties. 10. We f....