9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the illatom adoption and its impact on the gift-tax assessment. 2. Validity of gifts made to the daughters and their exemption under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift Tax Act. 3. Validity of the gift made to the wife and its exemption under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Illatom Adoption and Its Impact on the Gift-Tax Assessment: The primary contention revolves around the illatom adoption of Shri Y. Dayakar Reddy by Shri M. Adinarayana Reddy and the subsequent gifts made to him and his wife, Smt. Ramasubbamma. The illatom adoption agreement dated 25th May 1970, stated that Shri Dayakar Reddy was entitled to half of Shri Adinarayana Reddy's property. The Gift Tax Officer (GTO) initially rejected this claim, arguing that the illatom adoption agreement was not registered and did not confer any actionable rights under Hindu Law. The GTO relied on N.R. Raghavachari's Hindu Law Commentary, which states that an adopter does not deprive himself of his absolute power to dispose of his property. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held that under Hindu Law, and supported by the AP High Court decision in Peechu Ramaiah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1976) 2 APLJ 278, the illatom son-in-law is entitled to half the property even during the adopter's lifetime. The AAC also cited Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage and concluded that the property transferred to Shri Dayakar Reddy was not a gift but a legal entitlement. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, noting that the illatom adoption agreement was validated by the AP High Court in CRP Nos. 630 and 631 of 1982, which held that half the property should be included in the holding of Shri Dayakar Reddy. The Tribunal also dismissed the Department's argument that the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act invalidated illatom adoptions, stating that the AP High Court's later division bench decision must have considered the Supreme Court's decision in Kartar Singh vs. Surjant Singh & Ors. AIR 1974 (SC) 2161. Thus, the gifts to Shri Dayakar Reddy and Smt. Ramasubbamma were deemed valid and outside the purview of gift tax. 2. Validity of Gifts Made to the Daughters and Their Exemption Under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift Tax Act: The GTO argued that the gifts made to the daughters, Smt. Ramasubbamma and Smt. Suharlata, could not be exempted under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift Tax Act because they were executed three years after their marriages. The AAC, however, held that the gifts were made in fulfillment of promises made at the time of their marriages and were therefore exempt. The AAC relied on the AP High Court decisions in CIT vs. Ch. Chandra Sekhar Reddy (1976) 105 ITR 840 (AP) and CGT vs. Bandlamudi Subbaiah (1980) 123 ITR 509 (AP), which stated that gifts made in fulfillment of pre-existing legal obligations are not voluntary and thus not subject to gift tax. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, referencing the latest AP High Court decision in CGT vs. Bandi Subbarao (1987) 63 CTR (AP) 305, which held that gifts made in discharge of a father's legal obligation to provide for his daughters' maintenance and marriage expenses are not voluntary and are exempt from gift tax. 3. Validity of the Gift Made to the Wife and Its Exemption Under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift Tax Act: The GTO had exempted the gift made to the wife, Smt. N. Hymavathamma, under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift Tax Act. This exemption was not contested, and the AAC upheld it. The Tribunal also did not find any reason to dispute this exemption, and it remained valid. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the AAC's decision that the gifts made to Shri Y. Dayakar Reddy, Smt. Ramasubbamma, and Smt. Suharlata were valid and exempt from gift tax. The gift made to the wife, Smt. N. Hymavathamma, also remained exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the total taxable gift was correctly reduced by the AAC, and the appeal by the Department was dismissed.
|
