Since certain cmmon grounds are raised in both these appeals preferred by revenue, pertaining to assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, both were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. 2. Though grounds raised are as many as nine but most of them are argumentative. only two substantive grounds are whether assessee was correctly allowed status of HUF and whether lands which were secured by assessee through 'sanad' were acquired for something or nothing. First of all we take up issue pertaining to status of assessee which, according to assessee was HUF, though it was not accepted to be so by ITO but came to be accepted as such by AAC when matter came before him. facts in background are very interesting. assessee Raja Shiv Dev Inder Singh, who was connected with erstwhile ruling family of Patials, had filed his return in status of individual but in course of assessment proceedings had made submission to ITO that his correct status was that of HUF. This gentleman had married foreigner and what agitated mind of ITO was whether said marriage was performed as per Hindu law. According to him, assessee was to continue as individual, unless marriage was proved to have been performed as per Hindu saw. There is no dispute about facts that portion of property was received by assessee on partial partition of HUF. assessee's father Raja Mahesh Inder Singh actually got some property from Patiala State. He formed his HUF with self, wife and his son Raja Shiv Dev Inder Singh, assessee. Status of his father was accepted as that of HUF. There was partial partition to that effect and order under section 171 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was passed. ITO though accepted that assessee got property as consequence of partial partition, observed that his marriage was not according to Hindu customs or Sikh rites, as according to him, there was no proof to that effect. He also attempted to made mountain of mole because assessee had originally filed his return in status of individual and subsequently through letter claimed change in status. 3. When matter come before AAC, number of photographs regarding marriage were produced before him according to which it was held by him that marriage was performed as per Sikh rites. There was also affidavit which was placed before AAC that assessee was married to American citizen whose name was Miss Gail Hare and was converted to Sikh religion before her marriage and was given name of Jasminder Kaur. It was also asserted that she was blessed with three daughters were named and brought up as Sikh girl. On this basis and for reasons given by AAC in para 4 of his order, he accepted assessee's claim. 4. learned senior departmental representative Mr. R. K. Bali on first hearing on 12-6-1986 vehemently argued that there was no proof that marriage was performed as per Sikh rites or Miss Gail Hare was converted as Hindu. Regarding photographs, he submitted that none was presented before ITO and, according to him, none was on file. After partly hearing matter, learned counsel for assessee Mr. D. S. Gupta, who was present to support order of AAC, was asked to produce some photographs in support of his contention before Tribunal as well, which were brought on immediately next date, i.e., on 13-6-1986, in which at one state before Sri Guru Granth Sahib assessee with 'Sehra' on and Miss Gail Hare in perfect veil as per Sikh rites are seen present. In same photographs, late His Highness Yadvinder Singh is also seen standing behind. In another picture where some foreigners are also seen, assessee is sitting with bride who again is dressed as any Hindu bride belonging to respectable and royal family. By seeing two photographs, learned senior departmental representative went to extent of saying that as to who this lady was in veil is not clear, therefore, these photographs are hardly of any worth to substantiate assessee's contention. He submitted that why affidavit of bride was not placed on record. learned counsel for assessee, on other hand, submitted that from two photographs placed by him before us, it is more than clear that marriage of Miss Gail Hare was performed with assessee as per Sikh rites and, if this is there and she has been blessed with three daughters who have been named as Sikh girls and brought up as such and even bride's name had been changed to Jasminder Kaur, learned senior departmental representative is just in realm of surmises when challenges truth. 5. After taking into consideration submissions, looking to facts on record, perusing affidavits and photographs and reasoning given by AAC in his order, was are unable to accept finding of ITO or any contention of learned senior departmental representative. According to us, every work of order of AAC deserves to confirmed on basis of uncontroverted facts that assessee with his mother and father constituted HUF, it was as consequence of partial partition of said family that assessee got property in respect of which section 171 order was also passed and then assessee married though American citizen as per Hindu customs but did not lose his nationality. She was given name of Jasminder Kaur and, as apparent from photographs, she was married before most sacred religious book of Sikhs, i.e., Guru Granth Sahibji. Even presence of late His Highness Yadvinder Singh who is seen in photographs, bears testimony to fact that marriage was performed according to Sikh rites. We are unable to appreciate wild imagination of learned senior departmental representative that since face of bride is not seen, it could be anybody or photographs could be made without that particular having taking place as, according to him, photography has progressed to very great extent and day in and day out bogus photographs are beard being utilised for blackmailing, etc. It cannot be ignored that assessee is connected with blue good of Patiala royal family. There is evidence of witness regarding conduct of marriage. girls who were born out of said wedlock, have been brought up as Sikh girls. It was rightly observed by learned AAC that ratio of decision of Supreme Court in case of CWT v. R. Sridharan [1976] 104 ITR 436 supports contention of assessee. His reliance is also rightly placed on case of Mangat Ram Hazari Mal v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 788 (Punj. & Har.). His observations are in conformity with Court-made law that appellate authorities are empowered to alter status of assessee and determine correct status and there is no need to annul assessment. This is also trite law that ITO and AAC have coterminous powers. Once evidence was placed before AAC which was also put to ITO which could not be controverted by him which was also placed before us which was impossible to be proved as bogus, merely looking to wild surmises and imagination of revenue that in photos it could be anyone else in garb of bride than Miss Gail Hare, cannot find approval from any judicious mind. Case law cited by AAC and section 49 of Act, on one hand, and uncontroverted facts in form of affidavit and photograph on other hand, have compelled us to confirm section of AAC. 6. Coming to second aspect of matter that asset which was subject-matter of capital gains, was acquired by assessee for nothing and, hence, it could not be subjected to capital gains, main contention of assessee has been that acquired said asset at nil cost. It has been held by Supreme court that where cost at which asset is acquired cannot be visualised in form of money, there cannot be any capital gains. historical facts in background of issue are that property was given in form of 'sanad' issued by Chief Secretary to Government of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, on 22-3-1951. It was made as grant to father of assessee Raja Mahesh Inder Singh and his heirs for ever. It was as consequence of said 'sanad' which finds place in AAC's order, that assessee's father with his heirs became owner of said property. contention of assessee was that Raja Mahesh Inder Singh received it because of efforts of his forefathers. ITO went on to say that nothing in this world could be for nothing as, according to him, maintenance of state and soldiers and property at least could have cost something. learned senior departmental representative also submitted that property must have cost something even if it was first given as 'sanad' to assessee's father and subsequently it was maintained and that must have cost something to assessee. senior departmental representative though agreed with proposition that no capital gain could be there in respect of property which was acquired for nothing, he did not agree that property in question was acquired for nothing. 7. Once there is no controversy about fact that property in question was given through 'sanad' after merger of Patiala State, it cannot be said that it was won in war for which soldiers or other paraphernalia were provided. It was purely political decision and cost of acquisition in such case is incapable of being ascertained. Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in CIT v. H. H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendrasinghji [1986] 51 CTR (MP) 146 on identical facts is on all fours applicable in instant case and goes in favour of assessee. facts of that case were that Ratlam State was received in gift by forefathers of H. H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendrashighji. He had sold through registered sale deed certain lands from compound of palace. In this case, it was at stage of Tribunal that additional ground was taken by assessee that it could not be subjected to capital gains. Their Lordships of Madhya Pradesh High Court held: '(i) liability for capital gains tax would arise in respect of only those capital assets in acquisition of which element of cost is either actually present or is capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those assets in acquisition of which element of cost is altogether inconceivable, as in present case ...." (p. 147) It is trite law by now that capital gains could be subjected to tax only in respect of asset cost of acquisition of which has been something in terms of money or is capable of being reckoned. In instant case, assessee's father got it not even for song but absolutely for nothing. Therefore, there was no cost of acquisition. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by AAC in his order, which we adopt, his action is hereby confirmed. 8. Before we part, we may mention that since order of AAC is more than detailed in respect of both issues, we have intentionally avoided encumbering this order because that would have meant repetition and nothing else. 9. in result, both appeals agree dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. RAJA SHIV DEV INDER SINGH