9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "irrevocable transfer" under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 before and after the amendment of April 1, 1965. Detailed Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala involved the interpretation of the term "irrevocable transfer" under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, both before and after the amendment of April 1, 1965. The specific question referred to the court was whether the transfer of shares by the assessee to the donees in 1961 with an obligation to retransfer in 1969 constituted an irrevocable transfer, thereby excluding the shares from being assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69. The Wealth-tax Officer initially included the transferred shares in the computation of the assessee's net wealth due to an amendment in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, effective from April 1, 1965. However, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal reversed this decision, holding that the transfer instruments executed in 1961 qualified as irrevocable transfers under section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, despite the provision for retransfer in 1969. The crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the term "irrevocable transfer." The Revenue contended that the amendment introduced a fundamental change, invalidating any provision for retransfer or reassumption in the instrument. However, the court disagreed, stating that the legislative intent remained unchanged. The court clarified that the amendment merely aimed to ensure that transfers were absolute and unconditional, without allowing the transferor to retain any beneficial interest or right to retransfer or reassume control before the prescribed period. Ultimately, the court held that the concept of "irrevocable transfer" remained consistent before and after the amendment, emphasizing that if the instruments qualified as such before the change, the assessee was entitled to their benefit post-amendment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the shares were not assessable in her hands. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs in the referred tax cases, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
|
