ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The following three questions were stated by the Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs 1,72,182 or Rs 1,00,000 were liable to be included in the total income of the assessee as his share of profit from the firm of Kumar Engineering Works ?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sum of Rs 50,000 received by the assessee as his share of the value of the goodwill or any part thereof was liable to tax as capital gain ?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sum of Rs 4,77,941 or any part thereof was liable to tax as capital gain by reason of Section 47(ii) of the Act ?"

3. So far as Question 2 is concerned, it has already been answered in favour of the assessee. In view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [(1981) 2 SCC 460 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 119 : (1981) 128 ITR 294] the said questions must be held to have been rightly answered in favour of the assessee.

4. So far as Question 3 is concerned, the assessee invoked clause (ii) of Section 47 to contend that t