COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX Vs. JOHNA AUSTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question of law is referred under Section 26(1) of the GT Act at the instance of the Revenue.

(2.) THE matter arises under the GT Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). THE assessment year concerned is 1989-90. THE respondent-assessee gifted away 8.14 acres of land at Perinad (Ranny) to her daughter as per a registered deed. THE valuation of the property shown in the gift deed is Rs. 50,000. THE assessee filed a return of gift showing the value of the gift at Rs. 1,50,000. THE GTO completed the assessment accepting the valuation of the property shown by the assessee and after granting deductions determined the taxable gift at Rs. 1,20,000 and raised a demand of Rs. 32,250. THE assessee thereafter filed an application for rectification under Section 34 of the GT Act contending that the transaction is not at all exigible to gift-tax. THE assessing authority rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee filed appeal before the Dy. CGT(A), Trivandrum, who by his order dt. 16th May, 1994, allowed the same relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. B. Indira Devi v. GTO 1992 KLJ (Tax Cases) 5. THE Department took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal dismissed the said appeal relying on its own order in Indira Devi's case. It is against the said order of the Tribunal the above question has been referred.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions. The admitted facts are that the assessee had gifted away 8.14 acres of land to her daughter at the time of the daughter's marriage through a registered document. The assessee himself had filed a return showing the value of the property at Rs. 1,50,000. The assessing authority had acted on the basis of the said return and completed the assessment. Of course, the assessee, by way of rectification petition, sought to contend that the transaction is not exigible to tax. It is seen that the contention taken by the assessee's authorised representative before the two appellate authorities is that there was a custom in the orthodox Christian community of giving properties to the daughters at the time of their marriage which is supported by the certificate issued by the church and, therefore, such transaction cannot be treated as a gift. Both the appellant authorities had accepted the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Indira Devi's case (supra).