1989 (7) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al was justified in holding that no gift was made by the assessees to the minors ?" The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee, Kishan Chand Agarwal, was a partner in the firm Shri Hari Industries, Bharatpur, as a karta of the Hindu undivided family. He had 50% share in the profits of the said firm. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, there was change in the constitution of the said firm and Serva Shri Sushil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, minor sons of the assessee's brother, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and they were given 14%, 13% and 13% shares, respectively. Each of the said minors also contributed Rs. 4,000 towards the capital in the said firm. As a result of the admission of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the issue on the ground that there was inadequate consideration when a capital of Rs. 4,000 each was contributed by the minors. The Tribunal has, however, not dealt with this aspect of the matter. The assessee has failed to appear even though he has been duly served. We have heard Shri V. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue. Shri Singhal has placed before us the decision of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1987] 166 ITR 124, whereby the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1974] 97 ITR 393, on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, has been reversed. The Supreme Court has held that once goodwill is taken to be property and with the admission of the two minors to the benefits....