COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX Vs. MARY ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under S.26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 at the instance of the department in relation to an assessment for the year 1964-65. The questions referred are:

(2.) The previous year for the assessment year 1964-65 was the period that ended on 31-3-1964. On 25-3-1964, the assessee, one Dr. C. J. Antony, made a gift of a property situate in the town of Ernakulam having an extent of 19 cents with a building thereon in favour of his son Who was at that time studying in the Loyala College, Madras. The property was valued at Rs. 20,000/- in the gift deed. The Gift Tax Officer valued the gift at Rs. 1,05,200/- after allowing the statutory exemption of Rs. 5,000/-. In the assessment for the year 1964-65, the assessee claimed exemption from gift tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 in relation to the above gift on the ground that the gift in question was one that would fall under S.5(1)(xii) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. That section is in these terms:

(3.) The contention of the assessee was negatived by the assessing authority as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. After the assessment order, the assessee also executed a clarification deed dated 23-8-1966 in which he specifically stated that the gift was made in order that the educational needs of his son may also be met. In the deed of gift, Annexure A, the only statement is that the properties were gifted for the son's 'kalakshepam'. The English translation also uses the same Word 'kalakshepam' without attempting to translate it. In fact, we think, it is rather difficult to find out an exact translation for this word in English, particularly in the context in which it has been used in the document in question and taking into account the circumstances in which it was executed. The assessee contended before the Tribunal in the second appeal that the document was executed in any view of the matter, to provide for the educational needs of his son as well and this contention found acceptance with the Tribunal. We may usefully read Para.5 of the Tribunal's order in this regard: