2002 (10) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Gift Tax Act, 1958 - (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. P.M. Paily Pillai, the Tribunal is right in its finding on the obligation of the Christian father towards his children? - (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the gift given by the assessee to his daughter at the time of marriage cannot be considered as transfer and hence it cannot be considered as gift exigible to gift-tax?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Christian father's obligation towards children under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
2. Determination of whether a gift given by an assessee to his daughter at the time of marriage is considered a transfer exigible to gift-tax.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of a Christian father's obligation towards his children under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The assessee had given a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to his daughter at the time of her marriage. The assessing authority completed the assessment after exempting a sum under section 5(1)(vii) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the daughter had a legal right to receive the amount. However, the Department appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal based on a previous decision. The Revenue argued that the obligation of a Christian father to maintain his daughter ceases once she is married, as established in a previous court decision. Consequently, the court held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption for the gift made to his daughter at the time of her marriage.

2. The second issue pertains to whether the gift given by the assessee to his daughter at the time of marriage should be considered a transfer exigible to gift-tax. The respondent-assessee contended that even if the gift is taxable under the Gift-tax Act, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid on behalf of the assessee, his wife, and son. This alternate contention was not considered by the appellate authorities as the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee on other grounds. The court directed the Tribunal to consider this contention while passing final orders under section 260 of the Act. If necessary, the Tribunal could remit the question to the first appellate authority or assessing authority for further consideration.

In conclusion, the court answered the questions of law against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue based on the Christian father's obligation and directed the Tribunal to consider the alternate contention regarding the source of the gift amount.