TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encing on and from the 1st day of April, tax in respect of the gift, if any, made by a person during the previous year at the specified rate. In order to determine as to on which date in a particular year, the assessee would De liable to pay the tax on the gift made by him, a question arises as to when the transaction of gift is complete within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act so as to attract the liability to gift-tax in a particular year. The GTO took the view that the transaction of gift becomes complete on its registration and the liability to pay the tax on the gift must be determined from the standpoint of the date on which the gift deed was registered under the relevant provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The AAC reversed the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction was complete and a gift in the eye of law came to be made by the donor to the donee prior to the registration of the document by which the gift was made. Reliance, however, was placed on s. 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. The true scope of s. 47 has to be realized in order to comprehend its impact. A question pertaining to the scope of this provision arose before the Supreme Court in Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer, AIR 1961 SC 1747. The Supreme Court observed that s. 47 of the Registration Act does not say when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be completed on that date, and, therefore, it was not correct that the right of reconveyance had not accrued to the appellant on November 26, 1964, or that the Collector had no jurisdiction on that date to accept the said application. This contention, however, cannot be accepted in view of the decision in Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer [1962] 2 SCR 474; AIR 1961 SC 1747, where this court rejected an identical contention. Mr. Desai tried to distinguish that case on the ground that it was based on Mohamedan law which by custom applied to the parties there. But the decision is based not on any principle of Mohamedan law but on the effect of section 47 of the Registration Act." In view of these two decisions, the view taken by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
