TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than six months before, i.e., 5th May, 1982. Because of this time gap the GTO rejected the assessee's claim of exemption under s. 5(1)(vii) on the ground that the gift was not made on the occasion of the marriage. Before the Dy. Commissioner (A) the assessee took the ground that the GTO had erred in holding that the said transfer was a taxable gift and in the alternative that he erred in rejecting the above claim of the assessee for exemption. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the GTO's order rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption relying on the decision in CGT vs. M.S. Rao (1976) 102 ITR 308 (Pat). However, he did not decide the first ground that the GTO had erred in regarding the transfer as a taxable gift. 3. Before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82) 137 ITR 72 (Cal) and also on the Board's Circular No. 419 dt. 1st June, 1985 published in (1985) 155 ITR (St) 7 which states that "....The Department has accepted, in principle, the judgment of the High Court". He also relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CGT vs. Bandlamudi Subbaiah (1979) 8 CTR (AP) 91 : (1980) 123 ITR 509 (AP) to the same effect. He submitted that the gift was given on the occasion of marriage although there was a time gap of six months between the marriage and the gift and explained that this time gap had occurred because the mother-in-law of the daughter had died and so the gift could not be made at the time of the marriage adding that the gift was made on the auspicious day of Diwali. He disti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of this event. In that connection, he also submitted that there was no bar to giving the gift although the mother-in-law of the daughter might have expired and submitted that there was no necus between the marriage and the gift. He also pointed out that there was nothing on record to show as to what kind of gifts were made by the father and the mother of the bride and worth how much. Lastly, he submitted that the express provision for marriage gifts under s. 5(1)(vii) excluded any other relief in respect of gifts of that kind. The learned Departmental Representative read and interpreted s. 5(1)(vii) under which exemption has been claimed. The material part thereof is as follows: "Gift-tax shall not be charged under this Act in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not voluntary and that therefore, it is not a gift. That is how the requirement that the gift should be on the occasion of marriage is imported into the definition. Now, in that case, the gifts were in fact made at the very time of the marriage and the facts do not show that there was any time gap between the marriage and the gift while in the present case there is a large time gap of about 6 months between the marriage and the making of the gift and it is this time gap which has been the reason for the decisions against the assessee so far. Therefore, the question arises whether even if there is a time gap it can be said that the gift was on the occasion of marriage. In our view, the expression 'on the occasion of marriage' is not synony ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vations show that (a) it is an obligation or duty (b) the obligation is of the joint family and (c) it can be discharged at any time, not necessarily at the time of marriage. These requirements are satisfied in this case. The fact that there is a time gap is not material. The assessee has reasonably explained the reason for the delay in giving the shares. The mother-in-law of the assessee's daughter had expired. It is true that the marriage was not postponed but it is well-known that once certain ceremonies have taken place the ceremony of marriage itself cannot be postponed. However, anything by way of celebration such as parties, dinners and gifts are generally postponed. It may be true that there might have been earlier auspicious occasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghter. The learned Departmental Representative has also emphasised that the obligation to bear the expenses did not include the giving of any shares. According to him, the normal custom of ornaments would alone be permissible. We are unable to accept this contention. In the Calcutta High Court's case a fridge and cash were also given and if cash could be given there is no reason why shares could not be given because shares can be bought from the cash or even by disposing of the ornaments shares could be bought. The learned Departmental Representative has contended that exemption under s. 5(1)(vii) excludes any other benefit regarding gift but the question of exemption arises only if there is a gift and it is the assessee's contention here t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
