JUDGMENT
V. Dutta Gyani, J.
1. The Tribunal has referred the following question for this court’s opinion :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax cancelling the gift-tax assessment on the ground that there was no gift from the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership in favour of the continuing partners when the minor withdrew from the partnership and her share was taken by the continuing partners ?”
2. A few basic facts may now be noted. The assessee was a minor who was admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm, named and styled as, Sarda Trading Corporation. The said firm was reconstituted with effect from September 1, 1973, and the assessee was excluded from the partnership benefits. The Gift-tax Officer was of the opinion that as the assessee has surrendered her share in the goodwill of the firm she is liable to be taxed under Section 4(1) and 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Her share in the goodwill was calculated at Rs. 31,500. The assessment order is marked as annexure-A.
3. The assessee took up the matter before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the minor was not a contracting partner and had been admitted only to the benefits thereof. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that gift-tax was not attracted to the case of the assessee. The Revenue took up the matter before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1987] 166 ITR 124, it was contended that goodwill being a property and when minors are admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm and the share of an existing partner is reduced thereby, the right to the money value of the goodwill stands transferred and the transaction constitutes a gift under the Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the instant case there was no contractual agreement to claim a share of the goodwill and no stipulation was made for allowance of a share in the goodwill. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that there was no question of any gift in favour of the other partners so far as goodwill was concerned and with the result the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present reference.
4. Heard Mr. D.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, and Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent. This is a case which is fully covered by the decision in CGT v. Pranay Kumar Saharia [1993] 204 ITR 78 (Gauhati). Dealing with the question of rights of minor admitted to the benefits of partnership, this court, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Khushal Khemgar Shah v. Mrs. Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla, AIR 1970 SC 1147 and CIT v. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram [1965] 57 ITR 415, held that the expression “goodwill” is not defined in the Partnership Act. It has been described as denoting the benefits arising from connection and reputation as every positive advantage as distinguished from negative advantage that has been acquired by the firm in carrying on its business. It represents the public approbation which has been won by the business. Undoubtedly, goodwill forms part of the assets of the firm or partnership. This is clear from the provisions of Section 55 of the Partnership Act, which states that, in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the goodwill shall, subject to contract between the partners, be included in the assets and it may be sold either separately or along with the other properties of the firm. A share in the goodwill is capable of being inherited.
5. As in the aforesaid case and in the case at hand, the Gift-tax Officer did not indicate that he had perused the partnership agreement or the later partnership or the agreement by which the minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm. The order also does not disclose that any investment was made by the firm on behalf of the minor through her guardian, as indeed, he proceeded with the presumption that the minor had a right to the share of the assets of the partnership firm and further on the assumption that such a right also included a share in the goodwill. In such circumstances, the minor was held as not liable to gift-tax. The present case is fully covered by Pranay Kumar Saharia’s case [1993] 204 ITR 78 (Gauhati).
6. In the result, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
7. The reference is answered accordingly.