1996 (7) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1991 for the assessment year 1986-87, for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for making addition on the basis of deeming provisions contained in section 4(1)(a)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the donee should not only be the wife of the assessee's son on the valuation date, but also at the time of the gift?" The facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessment was originally completed under section 16(3) of the Act on March 19, 1987. By invoking the provisions of section 25(2) of the Act, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the said assessment on March 8, 1989. The Assessing Officer then again completed the fresh assessment and ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shrivastava, for the applicant, and Shri Mukati, learned counsel for the non-applicant. Counsel for the applicant supported the reference and submitted that the question may be answered in favour of the Department. Counsel for the non-applicant, however, submitted that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts and correctly applied the provisions of law stated in Philip John Plasket Thomas v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 97 (SC) and in Harpyari Devi Garg v. WTO [1982] 1 ITD 241 (MP). He, therefore, submitted that in view of the settled position of law, there was no justification to state the case and refer the question. He submits that the aforesaid question merits to be answered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the question ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be married and the engagement was announced on September 3, 1947. The transfer deed which we have earlier quoted contained no words of postponement. On the contrary, it contained words which indicated that the transfer took effect immediately. Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that the expression in the transfer deed 'in consideration of my forthcoming marriage' can have very little meaning as a real consideration, because on September 3, 1947, the parties had mutually promised to marry each other; therefore, the promise to marry had been made earlier than December 10, 1947. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before us that the transfer of shares was really a gift made to Mrs. Knight in contemplation of t....