9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the proviso under section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding the inclusion of gifts made to minor children in the total wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1965-66. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, regarding the inclusion of the value of a gift of shares in Rajendra Mills made by the assessee to her minor unmarried daughters. The issue was whether the proviso to section 4(1)(a) exempted gifts chargeable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act after March 31, 1964, from being included in the total wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the proviso applied only to gifts chargeable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act after March 31, 1964. The questions referred to the court were whether the Tribunal's interpretation was correct and if the sum of Rs. 6,20,000 should be included in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1965-66. The court considered the construction of the proviso and whether the words "for any assessment year commencing after the 31st day of March, 1964" referred to the assessment under the Gift-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee argued that the proviso exempted gifts made to minor children from being deemed held by the transferor-assessee for any assessment year commencing from April 1, 1964. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the exemption referred to the assessment year under the Gift-tax Act. The court analyzed both arguments and concluded that the construction placed by the revenue's counsel was more reasonable and acceptable. The court reasoned that the exemption under the proviso related to the assessment year under the Gift-tax Act, supported by the significant increase in gift-tax rates from 8% to 40% in the assessment year 1964-65. The court highlighted that the proviso aimed to prevent double taxation for gifts already subject to high gift-tax rates. Additionally, the court noted that the proviso did not intend a wholesale exemption of gifts made after the introduction of the Gift-tax Act. The court rejected the argument that the construction might lead to discrimination, citing a Supreme Court case where fixing a specific date for legal provisions did not violate equality principles. Further, the court compared the language used in the proviso under the Wealth-tax Act with a similar provision in the Estate Duty Act, which clarified that the exemption referred to the assessment year under the Gift-tax Act. Consequently, the court answered the questions in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal's decision and ruling against the assessee, with costs.
|
