TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f share in the property alongwith the building to his daughter in lieu of her maintenance. The Assessing Officer treated this transfer as a gift by the assessee in favour of his daughter and levied gift tax. On appeal by the assessee, the first Appellate authority confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the first Appellate authority found that the property was not valued by the Assessing Officer as per Schedule II of the Gift-tax Act. Therefore, he modified the valuation and fixed the value at Rs. 1,30,940 instead of Rs. 3,00,000 adopted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed the second appeal against this order of the first Appellate authority before Tribunal. 3. Shri T.N. Seetharaman, the learned counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority has fixed the value of the property at Rs. 1,30,940 and the assessee has not challenged this value adopted by the first Appellate authority. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for exemption as provided in section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act in respect of the amount which exceeds Rs. 10,000. The learned D.R. further submitted that there is no legal obligation on the part of the assessee for making any provision for maintenance. Therefore, the lower authority has rightly levied gift tax. 5. Having heard the learned representatives on both sides, we also perused the material available on record. Admittedly the assessee has executed a deed of maintenance on 22-10-1990 in favour of his daughter S. Sharmila. It is also not in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in respect of gift made on the occasion of the marriage. In this case the document shows that the assessee's daughter was likely to get married in the near future. It is nobody's case that the marriage of the assessee's daughters was arranged and the present document for maintenance was executed to avoid a gift at the time of marriage. The assessee, just like any other father, was under the bona fide belief that his daughter would be getting married in the near future. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made any gift on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter or at the time of marriage of his daughter. Therefore, the document dated 22-10-1990 could not be construed as a gift made on the occasion of the marriage. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only Rs. 10,000 and not more than that. Therefore, there was a gift. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the assessee is bound to maintain her daughter. The "maintenance" is defined in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, the assessee has to discharge his statutory obligation as provided under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In respect of food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment, no limitation is prescribed in the Gift-tax Act. The assessee is also bound to meet the marriage expenditure of her daughter. This marriage expenditure is also not referred in section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act. What is referred in section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act is gift on the occ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical attendance and treatment, no monetary limitation is prescribed under the Gift-tax Act. In respect of his unmarried daughter, the assessee is also under the legal obligation to meet a reasonable expenditure on marriage and incidental expenses thereto. The Gift-tax Act is silent on these aspects. Therefore, when the assessee incurred expenditure for discharging his legal obligation under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, in our view, it cannot be said that there was a gift. 8. "Gift" is defined in section 2(xii) of Gift-tax Act, 1958 which reads as follows:- "'gift' means the transfer by one person to another of any existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or money's worth, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have to incur reasonable expenditure on their marriage depending upon family status. There cannot be any limitation on such expenditure. In our view, it cannot be the intention of the Legislature to treat each and every expenditure made by a parent in respect of their respective children as a gift. Even before enactment of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, every parent had a moral and pious obligation to maintain their respective children. Likewise, every child had moral and pious obligation to maintain their respective parents. Only to codify the existing custom which was prevalent in Hindu community, the Legislature enacted Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, the existing moral and pious obligation was conver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
