TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajender Mehta for the assessee. JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the directions of the High Court the following question of law has been referred along with statement of case by the Tribunal in respect of gift-tax relating to the assessment year under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the amount in question was not chargeable to gift-tax and as such no penalty under section 17(1)(c) is leviable ?" 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee the late H. H. Maharana Bhagwat Singh of Mewar (now represented through his son and his legal heir M. K. Arvind Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huraj Kumari, married sister. It was held that since they were married, they were not dependent upon the assessee for maintenance. (c) Rs. 4,800 to natural parents, on the ground that the assessee came to royal family by adoption and hence his real parents are not entitled for maintenance out of the privy purse. Hence the payment of Rs. 4,800 was treated as gift. (d) Rs. 2,50,000 paid to M. K. Arvind Singh, son in addition to 'hath kharcha' allowance of Rs. 23,404. This payment was not treated as paid for maintenance purposes and treated as gift. 6. The assessment was completed on a taxable gift of Rs. 3,84,800. Simultaneously proceedings to levy penalty under section 17(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act were initiated as according to the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of. 10. Apparently the manner in which the additions made clearly goes to show that no case for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars was made out and also since all relevant and primary facts about the transfer of the property for consideration charged and the disbursement of the hath kharch or presents to the first degree relations of the assessee, who happened to be erstwhile Ruler, claimed to be maintenance, which were deemed to be the gift, subject to tax, have been disclosed along with the return. It was not a case of concealment of particulars of any transfer. It was not a case of concealment of any particulars of any gift or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars at all but was claim of the assessee that the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
