Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Desai has vehemently companytended that the question as whether an item of movable property held for personal use is a part of personal effects of an assessee should be determined number in a companymercial sense but according to the 1 1960 39 I.T.R. 123, 131 Ordinary ideas,, habits, customs and numberions of the class of society to which the assessee belongs or according to the well established habits, customs and traditions of his family.
A further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was taken by the appellant but the same also proved abortive as the Tribunal was of the view that the expression personal effects meant such items of movable property as were necessary adjuncts to an individuals own personality and the nature of sale being voluntary or otherwise was irrelevant for the purpose of section 12B in view of the decision of this Court in James Anderson v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City 1 .
Overruling the companytentions raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that as there was numbervoluntary sale chargeable to capital gains tax under section 12B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the aforesaid items did number companystitute capital assets as companytemplated by section 2 4A of the Act but fell within the purview of the exception carved out by clause ii thereof and as such were to be excluded in companyputing the gains because they were held for personal use by the assessee and the members of his family as was evident from the fact that they were used for the purpose of Maha Lakshmi Puja and other religious festivals and rituals in the family, and taking into account the market value of the assets as on January 1, 1954, the Income Tax officer, Bharatpur, worked out capital gains at Rs.
The appellant thereupon made an application to the High Court of Rajasthan for a certificate of fitness which was refused.
from the judgment and order dated the 2nd December, 1969 of the Rajasthan High Court in T.R. No.
Dissatisfied with this order, the appellant took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but remained unsuccessful.
3,44303.
T. Desai, Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
779 of 1971 Appeal by special leave.
20,78257.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated December 2,1 1969 of the High Court of Rajasthan.
Thereafter, the appellant applied to this Court far special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution which was granted on May 6, 1971.
On the day following his demise all the movable valuables possessed by him were taken over and sealed by the Government of Rajasthan because of the dispute regarding succession to the gaddi.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are Maharaja Shri Udebhan Singhji of Dholpur died issueless on October 22, 1954.
B. Ahuja and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
During the financial year 1957 58, the aforesaid sovereigns, silver companyns and silver bars were sold at the suggestion of the Government of India for a net companysideration of Rs.
5 of 1966.
On December 13, 1956 Maharaja Shri Hemant Singhji, the appellant herein, who was then a minor, was recognised by the Government of India as successor of the former Maharaja and t he aforesaid assets which inter alia companysisted of 4,825 gold sovereign, 7,90,440 old silver rupee companyns and silver bars weighing 2,54,174 totals were released by the Rajasthan Government and handed over to Rajmata in her capacity as the adoptive mother and guardian of the appellant on March 24 1957.
