T V ALEXANDER Vs. GIFT TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a donee under a gift, exhibit P-l, executed way back on March 6, 1972. He must consider himself fortunate that he has been the owner of a substantial item of property and could have its enjoyment without any monetary investment from his private funds. When the transaction is exigible to gift-tax, naturally, tax has to be paid. THE assessee is the donor. An assessment was made. Tax was determined. But it was not paid. THE assessing authority took more than 15 years to realise the irrecoverability of the tax due from the donor who is none other than the mother of the petitioner. She had apparently paid Rs. 1,400. Still further amount remains due. Recovery proceedings were thereafter pursued invoking Section 29 of the Act. THEreunder, the liability is cast on the donee for the payment of tax when the donor has defaulted in the same. THE Section is eminently just and reasonable. He who has been given a substantial item of property should not hesitate payment of a small portion of the same by way of tax. THE stage at which such recovery process could be switched on from the donor to the donee is conditioned by the statute itself.

(2.) HAVING regard to the circumstances, including the action pursued by the Department for a decade and a half, it could not be said that the opinion of the officer was without any basis or was formed in an arbitrary or perverse manner. The petitioner did not choose to put forward his contentions before the Gift-tax Officer, though he had indicated some of the complaints before the Tax Recovery Officer, The authority before whom his grievances were highlighted did consider the same but found them untenable and unacceptable. The result was exhibit P-5, intimating the petitioner about the more serious action proposed by him in relation to the recovery, namely, by way of attachment of the property. I do not find any reason whatever to interfere with that finding. There are circumstances which would indicate the supreme undesirability of Article 226 being invoked in favour of the petitioner. There is an indication that the petitioner himself had agreed to pay the balance tax, if he had been given some little time. Of course, that is a matter which the Gift-tax Officer has to consider. It may not be ordinarily assumed that the Gift-tax Officer would incorporate a false statement with a view to harass and harm the petitioner. I am not prepared to act upon the statement of the petitioner that there was no such discussion or no such agreement whatever. This is one other indication to persuade this court to decline jurisdiction in his favour. No injustice is caused to him.