9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under section 5(1)(ix) of the Gift-tax Act for a female assessee. 2. Interpretation of section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. 3. Inclusion of a female assessee under the term "person" in section 5(1)(ix). 4. Eligibility of a female assessee for exemption when gifting a life insurance policy to a dependent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption under section 5(1)(ix) of the Gift-tax Act for a female assessee: The respondent-assessee gifted a life insurance policy valued at Rs. 9,921 to her minor son and claimed exemption under section 5(1)(ix) of the Gift-tax Act. Initially, the Gift-tax Officer allowed the exemption. However, the Commissioner of Gift-tax contested this, arguing that the exemption was only available to male assessees. The Tribunal, on appeal, ruled in favor of the assessee, interpreting that the term "person" in section 5(1)(ix) includes both males and females. 2. Interpretation of section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act: The Tribunal referred to section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, which defines "person" to include both genders unless the context otherwise requires. The Tribunal found no context in section 5(1)(ix) that necessitates deviation from this definition, thus applying the term "person" to both male and female assessees. 3. Inclusion of a female assessee under the term "person" in section 5(1)(ix): The court noted that the term "person" in section 5(1)(ix) of the Gift-tax Act is not gender-specific. The phrase "other than his wife" in the provision only qualifies the donee and not the donor. Therefore, the term "person" as a donor includes both males and females. The court emphasized that interpreting "person" to exclude females would contravene Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. 4. Eligibility of a female assessee for exemption when gifting a life insurance policy to a dependent: The court concluded that the exemption under section 5(1)(ix) applies to gifts made by any person, male or female, to a dependent. The provision's objective is to exempt gifts of life insurance policies to dependents from gift-tax, irrespective of the donor's gender. The court found no legislative intent to restrict this benefit to male donors only. Additionally, the court distinguished this case from the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Sodra Devi, which involved different statutory language and context. Conclusion: The court recast the four questions into one: whether the term "person" in section 5(1)(ix) includes a female assessee. The court answered affirmatively, supporting the Tribunal's interpretation that the exemption applies to both male and female donors. The judgment favored the assessee and rejected the Revenue's contention, ensuring no gender-based discrimination in the application of section 5(1)(ix). There was no order as to costs.
|
