9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 1986-87 in respect of the gift made to his daughter at the time of her marriage. A notice under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act was hence issued to the assessee. In response to that notice, the assessee filed a nil return. At the hearing, the assessee explained that the payment of Rs.85,001 to his daughter at the time of marriage did not constitute a gift since he was under an obligation to maintain his daughter. According to the assessee, his obligation to maintain his daughter included the obligation of getting his daughter married in an appropriate manner and he was only discharging his obligation as a father when he gifted the sum of Rs.85,001 to the daughter at the time of her marriage. According to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee that a Christian father was bound to maintain his daughter and the maintenance included getting the daughter married to a suitable person. After referring to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on by the assessee, the Tribunal referred to a decision of this court in Scariah Varghese v. Marykutty [1991] 2 KLT 71 and the decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Cheriya Varkey v. Ouseph Thresia, AIR 1955 Trav-Co. 255 and took the view that even a Christian father was under legal obligation to maintain his daughter and the discharge of such an obligation at the time of the marriage of the daughter did not amount to making a gift exigible to gift-tax. According to the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dies possessed of. There is no case for the assessee here that the amount of Rs.85,001 transferred to his daughter was as sthreedhanam as understood by the members of his community, nor has the assessee a case that the amount was expenses incurred for the marriage of his daughter. He has also no case that it was a payment in lieu of maintenance due to his daughter before her marriage. This was obviously an amount given by the assessee to his daughter in addition to the amount spent by him on the marriage of the daughter. In this situation, the question is whether the payment of this amount to the daughter could not be treated as a gift as defined in the Act, the consideration for which is only love and affection. In Chakko Daniel v. Dani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in V. 1. Walter v. M. J. Walter, AIR 1928 Cal 600, of the Bombay High Court in Philomena Mendoza v. Dara Nusserwanji, AIR 1943 Bom 338, a passage from Trevelyan's Law Relating to Minors, Simpson on the Law of Infants and Halsbury's Laws of England, stated that they were in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Chakko Daniel v. Daniel Joshua, AIR 1953 Travancore-Cochin 61, to the effect that a Christian father has no obligation enforceable in a civil court, to maintain his minor child. Their Lordships held that the transfer of property by the father in favour of his child could only be in the nature of a gift for the reason that the child had not suffered any detriment. Their Lordships als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different fact-situation in these cases. Here, we are dealing with the exigibility to tax under the Gift-tax Act, of the transfer of a fund by the father to his daughter at the time of her marriage and are concerned with the question whether it would satisfy the definition of a gift under the Gift-tax Act. In our view, there is no justification for us not to follow the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench in CIT v. P. M. Paily Pillai [1972] 86 ITR 516, which has direct bearing. We are also of the view that the learned single judge in Scariah Varghese v. Marykutty [1991] 2 KLT 71, was not justified in distinguishing the decision of the Full Bench on the reason stated by him. Even going by the principle of justice, equity and good consc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision. At the relevant time the exemption was only up to Rs.10,000. This provision for exemption itself indicates that a gift by a father to his daughter at the time of her marriage, irrespective of the religion or caste in excess of Rs.10,000 would be a gift exigible to tax under the Gift-tax Act. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on by the Tribunal which was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in CGT v. B. S. Apparao [2001] 248 ITR 103, related to a gift made by a Hindu father. Under the Hindu law, a father had a legal obligation to maintain and marry away his daughter and that legal obligation could be enforced by the daughter in an action through the civil court. The authorities referred to by us includin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
