9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 5, 1979, is a valid family settlement, specially in view of the fact that it was made simply to avoid future disputes between the two sons of the late Rahim Buksh ? 2. Whether the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in applying the ratio of the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Ziauddin Ahmed v. CGT [1976] 102 ITR 253 especially in view of the fact that in that case there was a family dispute which took a serious turn in 1959 to put an end to which the settlement was made whereas in the instant case there is no such family dispute ? 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, is not applicable ? " For the purpose of answeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahi, by way of family settlement dated December 5, 1979. The Gift tax Officer rejected the contention that there was no gift and that the properties had been transferred by virtue of family settlement dated December 5, 1979, and distinguished the decision in Ziauddin Ahmed [1976] 102 ITR 253 (Gauhati). The Gift-tax Officer, therefore, made an assessment on 40 per cent. share of the capital of the deceased in the firm, R. B. Stores and also included 1/4th share value of the property. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax upheld the contention of the assessees that the agreement dated December 5, 1979, was a family settlement, that the donees had filed a nil return for the transfer of property did not constitute a gift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was effected just to avoid future dispute. In order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Joshi, it is to be seen what constitutes a family settlement. Family settlement is made just to avoid dispute to maintain the honour and dignity of a family. It is neither a partition nor an exchange. Now the question is whether the dispute must be in existence at the time of family settlement. The Supreme Court in Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi, AIR 1966 SC 323 held thus (at page 329) : "Courts give effect to a family settlement upon the broad and general ground that its object is to settle existing or future disputes regarding property amongst members of a family. The word ' family ' in the context is not to be understood in a narrow sense of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
