1985 (1) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... raise an additional ground in the two assessment years. It is contended that the provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules'), were applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and that, therefore, the value of the assessee's property situated at 18, Golf Links, should have been valued in accordance with that rule. The learned departmental representative has opposed the consideration of the additional ground, as according to him it does not arise out of the combined order of the AAC dated 8-3-1983. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ground raised being purely legal, it should be entertained and decided. It is further submitted by him that the issue being covered by the S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the hands of the assessee-HUF. It is contended by Shri Sachdeva, the learned authorised cousel fo the assessee, that there had been partial partition in the family in December 1973 by virtue of which the property at 18, Golf Links, was allotted in equal one-third share to the three coparceners of the HUF. In other words, the property ceased to be owned by the members of the HUF as joint tenant and instead came to be enjoyed by them as tenants-in-common with effect from December 1973. According to the learned counsel, the value of the property situate at 18, Golf Links, was, therefore, not liable to be assessed in the hands of the HUF notwithstanding the fact that the partial partition had not been recognised for the purposes of income-ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion either in the eyes of Hindu law or in the eyes of Income-tax law and, therefore, there was no question of excluding the value of the property situate at 18, Golf Links, from the hands of the assessee-HUF. In support of his later contention, the learned departmental representative has placed reliance on a decision in the assessee's own case in Parshotam Lal Sood & Bros. v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 739 (MP). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Even though we would agree with the learned authorised counsel of the appellant that the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the wealth-tax laws with regard to case of partial partition were different at least till the assessment year 1980-81 and that the ratio and decision in the case decide....