TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of 8.5 cents each in Survey No. 2583 of Chengazhacherry Village, Trivandrum Taluk, by two separate documents dated May 19, 1978. The petitioner happened to be the power of attorney of his brother. The purchase was for a consideration of Rs. 77,500 each. These properties were sold in December, 1980, by two separate sale deeds for a consideration of Rs. 1,27,500 each. The petitioner filed a consol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their hands. The Commissioner did not find his way to accepting this contention on the ground that the entire purchase price was paid by the petitioner's brother, Muraleedharan, and, therefore, it has to be presumed that the properties were owned by him. According to the Commissioner, there was no evidence forthcoming to show that the consideration for the petitioner's purchase proceeded from him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the sum of Rs. 85,000 advanced was not a loan, but a gift given by Muraleedharan to the petitioner. The appeal was, therefore, allowed holding that there was no reason to treat 50 per cent. of the purchase consideration as gift. It is agreed on both sides and it is not in dispute that the Department has not challenged this order, exhibit P-6, in further proceedings by way of appeal and that thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hands of the petitioner and Muraleedharan. They could not have been clubbed together in one assessment and the entire consideration treated as having been received by one of the two brothers only. Exhibit P-1 is, therefore, contrary to the facts of the case as now held in exhibit P-6. Consequently, exhibit P-2 is also unsustainable. The Department cannot, for the purpose of assessment to gift-ta....