High CourtsDivision Bench(1994) 01 MAD CK 0019

Commissioner of Income Tax vs T. Narasimhalu Chettiar

Madras High Court · Decided on 19 January 1994 · Citation: (1994) 210 ITR 869 : (1994) 210 ITR 689

HON’BLE JUDGES
Venkataswami, J · Rangarajan, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Cases No''s. 1277 to 1280 of 1980 (References No''s. 444 to 447 fo 1980)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 345 words

Rangarajan, J.—The facts leading to this reference are as follows :

2.

The assessee is the sole proprietor of a lodge and is running a business there. When he became an under-trial prisoner, he executed a settlement

deed on August 30, 1963, transferring the hotel business to his wife. Even though the documents mentioned that it was in consideration of his

natural love and affection, admittedly, the amounts due from his wife in the current account maintained between them had been adjusted for a sum

of Rs. 2,000 which was the value mentioned in the document for the goodwill and furniture. The Income Tax Officer considered that it was

inadequate as he estimated the goodwill at Rs. 17,000 and the furniture at Rs. 1,500. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found that the profit for

the immediately preceding year was only very small and if reasonable remuneration to the proprietor was to be taken into account, the goodwill

could not be much. The Tribunal also noted that the furniture was very old having been used for the business for a long time and found that the

amount of Rs. 2,000 was adequate consideration for the transfer. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the deed of settlement executed on August 30,1963, the

Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 64(iii) could not be invoked in the assessee''s case for bringing to tax the

income from Model Lodge transferred to the assessee''s wife ?

3.

This question challenges only the finding of fact that there was adequate consideration for the transfer of the business and, therefore, no addition

can be made u/s 64(iii) of the Act. The Revenue was not able to persuade us to interfere with this finding of fact as the Tribunal had taken into

account all relevant facts in giving its finding. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue, with costs of Rs. 500.