9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench. 2. The assessee, an individual, who possessed certain agricultural lands, made four gifts on 24-10-1977 to his daughters. The aggregate value of the four gifts came to Rs. 49,500. He paid Rs. 1,485 by way of stamp duty on all these four gifts. He claimed deduction for the stamp duty paid from the gift-tax levied, by invoking the provisions of section 18A. The GTO did not allow the assessee's claim on the ground that for the rebate to be allowed under section 18A, the gift-tax payable in respect of each gift must exceed Rs. 1,000, and since in these cases, the individual gift-tax did not exceed Rs. 1,000, the assessee was not entitled to the rebate. It was his view that the aggregate gift is of no consequence for granting the rebate contemplated under section 18A. He, thus, levied gift-tax of Rs. 3,450 and demanded it from the assessee without allowing the rebate claimed for. 3. The AAC, on appeal, confirmed the view of the GTO. 4. In the present appeal filed before us, various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee. The first major contention advanced was based upon section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, which provided: "In all Central Acts and Regulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x payable should alone be considered and not the gift-tax payable on each of the gifts. He pointed out that since the meaning assigned to the expression 'instrument of gift' had been erroneous, that view requires reconsideration. In this context, he referred us to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, for the view that if in construing a statute, any absurdity or mischief results, that construction which would avoid absurdity or mischief must be preferred rather than the literal interpretation which would produce a manifestly absurd and unjust result. The Supreme Court pointed out in this case that the Court may, in given circumstances, even modify the language used by the Legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction. Pressing these observations into service, the learned counsel for the assessee stressed that since the object of enacting section 18A was to give a rebate of tax on gifts made, the interpretation must be liberal so as to include the 'instrument of gift' as referring to 'instruments of gift' so that if the total gifts made in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the total gift-tax paid in a year in respect of properties gifted, or the gift-tax payable in respect of the property gifted by an instrument of gift. Reading section 18A, word by word, the learned departmental representative submitted candidly that the whole object of enacting section 18A was to give relief in respect of stamp duty payable in respect of each instrument of gift of property from the total gift-tax payable, and not the total stamp duty payable in respect of all the gifts made in a year from the total gift-tax payable, subject to the limits laid down. What he meant to convey was that section 18A uses the expression 'an instrument of gift of property in respect of which the gift-tax payable exceeds one thousand rupees'. He pointed out that this is the basic qualification or requirement for the application of section 18A. On the satisfaction of this basic qualification of gift-tax payable in respect of one instrument of gift or property exceeding Rs. 1,000, the assessee would be entitled to the relief for a deduction from the total gift-tax payable. The basic qualification of the gift-tax payable exceeding Rs. 1,000 in respect of each instrument of gift of property c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal nor the Court has any power. He also submitted that section 13 of the General Clauses Act had been quoted only for misapplication, ignoring the purport for which provision was made. 7. We have with candour reproduced the above arguments addressed to us by both the assessee and the revenue. On a careful ratiocination, we felt that the view expressed by the earlier Bench, in the case of Mukta Raghavaiah is the correct one in the sense that it represented the intent of the Legislature. Section 18A provided: "18A. Where any stamp duty has been paid under any law relating to stamp duty in force in any State on an instrument of gift of property in respect of which the gift-tax payable exceeds one thousand rupees, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction from the gift-tax payable by him of an amount equal to the stamp duty so paid or one-half of the sum by which the gift-tax payable, before making the deduction under this section, exceeds one thousand rupees, whichever is less." Analysing this section, we get that the following requisites must be satisfied, before a credit for stamp duty paid is asked for and allowed: 1. There must be stamp duty paid under any law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the language used in section 18A so as to call in aid the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court. Some confusion arose because of the use of the words in section 18A 'from the gift-tax payable' which, perhaps, gave rise to the argument to link it with section 3 to say that the total gift-tax payable was contemplated for the purpose of giving the relief. But the purport and the meaning of the expression 'from the gift-tax payable' is very clear to see. The deduction to be given for the stamp duty is from the total gift-tax payable. The total gift-tax payable has to be ascertained certainly not with reference to section 18A, but with reference to section 3 only. After ascertaining the gift-tax payable as per section 3, from the gift-tax payable so ascertained the relief from stamp duty has to be given by invoking the provisions of section 18A. There is, therefore, no conflict at all between section 3 and section 18A. Both are operating in two different fields. One does not encroach upon the other. As correctly pointed out, on behalf of the revenue, the Head Note of section 18A far from being an aid to support the interpretation canvassed for on behalf of the assessee, does lend suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is the intention of enacting section 13 of the General Clauses Act, that has to be applied only where the circumstances require. Here, section 18A did not provide for any indication or suggestion, in the language that it used, that there is a possibility for aggregation of all the gifts made in order that the total gift-tax payable is ascertained, and that if it exceeded Rs. 1,000, the assessee could be given the relief of stamp duty payable. Applying the law laid down by the Madras High Court, we have to hold that the singular cannot, in all circumstances, include plural, but only in certain circumstances, and those circumstances are not present here in this case. 8. Before we part with this point, we may have to refer to the decisions of the Bombay High Court, relied upon. That is the very soul of the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. Those decisions revolved on the question as to what constitutes an instrument of partnership for the purpose of granting registration under the Income-tax Act. The question was whether there could be several documents embodying the terms and conditions of the partnership to which the partners have agreed or should they all be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
