9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e wife of Shri Anand Kumar and their minor children did not amount to a gift by the assessee-HUF liable to gift-tax and consequently in upholding the AAC's order cancelling the gift-tax assessment made on the assessee-HUF ?" The material facts, as obtainable from the statement of the case, giving rise to this reference are these: The assessee, Gopiji Laxmichand, is a HUF of which Laxmichand is the " karta The joint family consists of Laxmichand ; his son, Anand Kumar; Laxmichand's wife, Smt. Rajibai; Anandkumar's wife, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and the sons of Anandkumar. On October 25, 1973, by virtue of a partition deed, a partial partition of the immovable properties of the said HUF was effected. The total value of the immovable proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounted to a gift by the HUF in their favour. Holding thus, the GTO initiated gift-tax proceedings and subjected the amount of Rs. 80,000 to gift-tax. The assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC. The AAC allowed the appeal and held that the receipt of the share by the wife of Anandkumar and his children of the property valued at Rs. 80,000 was not gift within the meaning of s. 2(xii) read with s. 2(xxiv) of the Act. The Department went in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the AAC and dismissed the appeal of the Department. Thereupon, at the instance of the Department, the present reference, as already stated hereinabove in para. 1 of this order, has been made to this court. It may be stated her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his son and his six grandsons. There was a partition of the, immovable properties of the family through a registered deed executed on January 17, 1958, and the movable properties were divided on April 13, 1958, on which date the necessary entries in the account books were made. The total value of the properties as divided was Rs. 8,51,440 but under that partition, the assessee took properties worth only Rs. 1,78,343, the remaining properties being allotted to the son and the grandsons. The question was whether by allotting greater share to the other members of the coparcenary than that to which they were entitled, the assessee could be held to have made a "gift" of a portion of his share of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or to increase the value of the property of any other coparcener by agreeing to take a share lesser than what he would have got if he would have gone to a court to enforce his claim. The word ' transaction ' in clause (d) of section 2(xxiv) takes its colour from the main clause; it must be a transfer of property in some way. Section 2(xxiv) deals with transfer of properties in various ways and not any other transactions. The words 'disposition', 'conveyance, ' assignment ', ' settlement ', ' delivery ' and 'payment', are all used to indicate some of the modes of transfer of property. An interpretation clause which extends the meaning of a word does not take away its ordinary meaning. An interpretation clause is not meant to prevent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision. Certainly, many of the observations there, read de hors the particular statute, might reinforce the assessee's stand. This court interpreted the expression 'transfer of property' in section 2(xxiv) and held that the expression 'disposition' used in that provision should be read in the context and setting of the given statute. The very fact that 'disposition' is treated as a mode of transfer takes the legal concept along a different street, if one may use such a phrase from the one along which that word in the Estate Duty Act is travelling. Mr. justice Hegde rightly observed, if we may say so with respect, that: Words in the section of a statute are not to be interpreted by having those words in one hand and the dictionary in the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion that it is undisputed that the aforementioned members formed a HUF. It is a settled position in Hindu law that a joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A joint Hindu family may be composed of smaller or branch joint families, and it may constitute an apex joint family. In the instant case, all these members, referred to hereinabove, constitute an apex HUF. It is also well settled that a wife cannot herself demand partition, but if a partition does take place between her husband and her sons, she is entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son. In this view of the matter, all these members of the HUF were entitled to a share in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
