Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 388 - HC - Income TaxGift u/s 56(2) (vii) - scope of term relatives u/s 2(41) - Grant of exemption from income tax on gifts received - relatives as defined under Section 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act - To be treated at par with ‘relative’ under Section 2(41) and Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not - HELD THAT:- Gift of property was brought under the purview of tax with effect from 1st October, 2010 vide the Finance Act, 2010. To avoid misuse of gift of properties, the expression ‘relative’ was defined in a narrow and restricted manner in the IT Act. In the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2010 it is stated that the “The provisions of Section 56(2) (vii) were introduced as a counter evasion mechanism to prevent laundering of unaccounted income. The provisions were intended to extend the tax net to such transactions in kind.” This means that the legislature deliberately left out the gifts received from people other than those specified in the provisions from being exempted from getting taxed. Further, the Senior Citizens Act defines the term ‘relative’ under the said Act and that too with a stipulation “unless the context otherwise requires”. This Court is of the opinion that it is clear from the object of both the Acts that the same expression ‘relative’ is not used in similar context. In fact, the term ‘relative’ being wholly context-specific, there is no reason to assume that the criteria used in defining it in one context will provide even a useful starting point in another context. The Courts have long rejected any attempt to force them to regard cross-contextual applications of definitions as binding. Consequently, a statutory definition in one context cannot be imported in another Act especially when the two Acts define the same term differently. General approach of the Courts is to ensure that they do not stray into usurping the legislative function - The general approach of the Courts is to ensure that they do not stray into usurping the legislative function. A specific instance of this approach is the rule that a casus omissus is not to be created or supplied, so that a statute may not be extended to meet a case for which provision has clearly and undoubtedly not been made. Real intent is to ensure that gift tax is not levied on Donee. The present petition in no manner promotes the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens. Consequently, the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on Sections 3 and 4 of the Senior Citizens Act is untenable in law and the argument that the IT Act makes two classes of Senior Citizens Act is contrary to facts. The order issuing notice in Ms. X vs. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2022 (8) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT] also offers no assistance to the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act confers additional remedy upon senior citizens in certain circumstances. However, the said Section does not restrict the right of the Donee to challenge the gift/transfer made by a senior citizen in accordance with law. WP dismissed.
|