COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAMBHAI N AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment year 1982 -83 :

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Akil Kureshi, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Soparkar with Mr. Manish Kaji, for the respondent -assessee.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh : [1970]77ITR27(SC) and the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Smt. Pelleti Sridevamma : [1995]216ITR826(SC) , we find that the facts in the instant case are similar to the facts in Prem Bhai Parekh's case : [1970]77ITR27(SC) in which the apex court held that it must be established that the income in question arose directly or indirectly from the gifts in question. In the facts of Prem Bhai Parekh's case : [1970]77ITR27(SC) , there was no dispute that the assessee had transferred to each of his minor sons a sum of Rs. 75,000 and that the amount contributed by those minors in the share of the partnership firm came from those amounts, but the court posed the question - -whether it can be said that the income in question arose directly or indirectly from the assets transferred by the assessee to those minors when the income of the minors arose as a result of their admission to the benefit of their partnership. Even though they were admitted to the benefit of the partnership because of the contribution made by them, the court held there was no proximity between the transfer of assets and the income in question. The court held that the connection between the gifts in question andincome in question was a remote one. In our view, the facts in the instant case are similar except that instead of the donee being minor sons, in the instant case the donee was the daughter -in -law of the assessee.