RAM CHANDER AGGAIWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to this Court foropinion, at the instance of the assessee, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (for short the 'Act'):

(2.) It may be stated that keeping in view the factual background of the case, thequestion referred does not clearly bring out the controversy and, therefore,requires to be re-framed as under:

(3.) At the out set, Mr. Anoop Sharma, learned Counsel for the assessee pointedout that answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the SupremeCourt in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1985) 156 ITR 509.Mr. Rajendra, learned Standing Counsel for revenue, though candidly admittedthat it was so but strenuously urged before us that in view of certain observationsof the Supreme Court in the same decision, we should go into the question whetherthe contribution of plot of land by the assessee as his capital contribution in the firmwas merely a device to convert the said asset in to money, which would beavailablefor his benefit without attracting any liability to Income-tax on capital gains and forthis purpose, he suggested that we should now require the Income-tax AppellateTribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case. The observations of theSupreme Court sought to be relied upon are as follows: