9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Aug., 1986. The GTO gave a finding that the gift was not complete on 31st March, 1986 and, therefore, it could not be assessed for asst. yr. 1986-87. Since the registration of the gift deed was completed after 1st April, 1986, the GTO brought to tax the gifted property for asst. yr. 1987-88. The assessee was aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Dy. CGT(A). However, the Dy. CGT(A) due to the reasons recorded by him in his appellate order agreed with the GTO and gave a finding that the gift was not assessable in asst. yr. 1986-87. He, therefore, confirmed the order of the GTO. 2. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up on appeal before us. The learned counsel Sri V. Prabhakar contended that the order of the GTO is contrary to law and fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant period for the purpose of gift-tax. In this connection, he draws our attention to the decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.V. Krishna Rao vs. First Addl. GTO (1968) 70 ITR 813 (AP) and in the case of Vadulla Venkata Rao vs. CGT (1990) 85 CTR (AP) 249. He also draws our attention to the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rati Ram vs. GTO (1979) 7 TTJ (Del) 165. In the said decision, the Tribunal had followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.J. Nathan vs. Maruthi Rao AIR 1965 SC 430 and Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Union Bank Ltd. vs. Smt. Ram Rathi AIR 1954 All 595. It was held by the Tribunal in the said decision that a completed gift takes effect from the date of execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontends that the GTO has rightly brought to tax the said gift for asst. yr. 1987-88. The ld. DR, therefore, supports the decision of the GTO and Dy. CGT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions. Considering the judicial precedents placed before us, we are of the view that the gift of the movable property in the case of the assessee is assessable in asst. yr. 1986-87. Though it is true that the gift deed was not registered before 31st March, 1986 but the fact remains that the assessee had submitted the gift deed for the purpose of registration on 31st March, 1986 itself. In this connection, we are supported by the decisions of jurisdictional High Court referred to above. In the decision reported in (1968) 70 ITR 813 (AP), it was held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
