The High Court agreed with the companyclusions reached by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal.
8,51,440/ but under that partition the assessee took properties worth only Rs.
The assessee claimed recognition of that partition under s. 25A of the Act.
This companytention was number accepted by the Tribunal.
Appeals by certificate special leave from the judgment and order dated December 10, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, A. N. Kirpal, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant in both the appeals .
There was a partition of the immovable properties of the family through a registered deed executed on January 17, 1958 and the movable properties were divided on April 13, 1958 on which date the necessary entries in the account books were made.
The High Court answered that question in the negative.
The total value of the properties so divided was Rs.
The Gift Tax Officer overruling the objection of the assessee, came to the companyclusion that the assessee by allotting greater share to the other members of the companyarcenary than to which they were entitled, must be held to have made a gift of a portion of his share of the property to the other members and hence was liable to be taxed under the Act.
128 of 1968 and 1341 of 1971.
Uttama Reddy and D. N. Gupta, for the respondent in both the appeals .
65 of 1967 Reference No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
That was granted by the Department on November 29, 1958.
The Commissioner of Gift Tax number being satisfied with that decision has brought these appeals.
The respondent, N. S. Getti Chettiar who will hereinafter be referred to as the assessee was karta of his undivided Hindu family companysisting of himself, his son Govindaraju Chettiar and six sons of the asid Govindaraju Chettiar.
The facts of the case are number many though the question of law arising for decision is by numbermeans easy.
The decision appealed against was rendered by the High Court of Madras in its advisory jurisdiction, in a reference under s. 26 1 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. Both these appeals by the Commissioner of Gift Tax arise from the same judgment.
Aggrieved by that order, the assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that as numbermember of an undivided Hindu Family had a definite share in the family assets, on partition, when the joint enjoyment came to an end, there was numberneed to have arithmetical equality between the shares of the various companyarceners.
The remaining properties were allotted to his son and grandsons.
He, opined that the partition in question is a transaction entered into between the assessee and the members of his family with intent thereby to diminish the value of assessees own property and increase the value of the property of his son and grandsons.
Civil Appeal No.
The former one is by certi ficate and the latter by special leave.
128 of 1969 became unsustainable.
18 of 1963 .
2,46,377 on which he is liable to pay gift tax to the High Court seeking its opinion.
1,78,343/ .
He accordingly held that the assessee was number liable to pay any gift tax in respect of the properties that fell to the shares of his son and grandsons.
1341 ,of 1971 came to be filed because the certificate given by the High Court number being supported by any reason, the appeal brought on the strength of that certificate Civil Appeal No.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench referred the question a, Whether there was gift by N. S. Getti Chettiar of Rs.
The Department appealed against this decision to the Tribunal.
