N.M.KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dt. 9th March, 1978, has referred two questions of law in respect of two different assessees. The questions of law had arisen out of WT Appeal No. 215/Jp/76/77 for the asst. year 1975 -76 (Smt. Kamla vs. CWT) and WT Appeal No. 216/Jp/1976 -77, for asst. year 1975 -76 (Smt. Sudershan vs. CWT,). In view of these circumstances, the office shall register two reference applications as DBWT Ref. No. 23 of 1978 in respect of the assessee, Smt. Kamla and DBWT Ref. No. 23A of 1978 in respect of Smt. Sudershan. Both the above reference applications are now disposed of by one single order. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift of Rs. 25,000 of Smt. Kamla was an indirect transfer of the amount to her minor children and was, therefore, includible in her net wealth under S. 4(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift of Rs. 25,000 of Smt. Sudershan was an indirect transfer of the amount to her husband and was, therefore, includible in her net wealth under S. 4(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957."
(2.) NOBODY appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Department. The Tribunal after considering the entire record and the facts and circumstances of this case arrived at the conclusion that the transfers made in this case by Smt. Kamla, to her minor children and by Smt. Sudershan to her husband were indirect transfers and as such were includible in the net wealth under S. 4(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957. The Tribunal in this regard placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in R. Venkatachala Thevar vs. State of Madras (1972) 86 ITR 701 (Mad) : TC42R.832. The Tribunal gave the reason that Shri Mohindra Singh stands neither to gain nor to lose anything from these transfers. If he is removed from the picture, the position becomes rather clear because in that case, Smt. Kamla gifts to the husband of Smt. Sudershan and Smt. Sudershan gifts to the minor children of Smt. Kamla. The sole question in such a case to be considered is whether the transactions are the links of the same chain and are interrelated with each other as links of the same transaction or whether they are totally independent. It has to be seen whether the causation and motivation for them is common. The Tribunal has given its finding after perusing the entire record of the case and after giving full hearing to the parties. In our view, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift of Rs. 25,000 of Smt. Kamla was an indirect transfer of the amount to her minor children and similarly the gift of Rs. 25,000 of Smt. Sundershan was an indirect transfer of the amount to her husband. Both the above questions are, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.;