Judgment :- 1. The following question has been, at the instance of the revenue referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the Income Tax Officer could not be considered to have, in actual fact, invoked the provisions of S.52(2) when he has taken action under S.52(1)?" The assessment year in question is 1974-75. The assessee is a medical practitioner. He brought the assets and liabilities of his dispensary after closing down the practice and discharging the staff into a partnership firm when he became its partner. The other partners are his close relatives. The Income Tax Officer found that there was transfer of assets, but in so far as only the book value was shown in the accounts of the firm as the value of the assets brought in by the assessee, there was suppression of a portion of the actual value so as to attract the provisions of S.52(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the fact that only the book value was shown in the books of account of the firm did not justify the inference that S.52(1) was attracted. This finding was, on appeal by the revenue, confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts stated by us clearly attract the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 509, 521, 523 (SC) where it is stated: ".....In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the consideration which a partner acquires on making over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital can fall within the terms of S.48. And as that provision is fundamental to the computation machinery incorporated in the scheme relating to the determination of the charge provided in S.45, such a case must be regarded as falling outside the scope of capital gains taxation altogether. And as that provision is fundamental to the computation machinery incorporated in the scheme relating to the determination of the charge provided in S.45, such a case must be regarded as falling outside the scope of capital gains taxation altogether. In as much as we are of opinion that the consideration received by the assessee on the transfer of his shares to the partnership firm does not fall within the contemplation of S.48 of the Income Tax Act and further that no profit or gain can be said to arise for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, we hold that these cases fall outside the scope of S.45 of the Act altogether." This principle shows that when the assets were transferred by the assessee to the partnership firm on hit entry as a partner none of the provisions relating to capital gains was attracted, and there was, therefore, no scope for the application of any provision of S.52. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary far us to answer the question. We decline to answer the same. 3. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this Tax Referred case. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench.