2005 (1) TMI 324 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Gifts Contested: Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee

Gift-Tax Officer. Versus PJ. Kurian.

The Tribunal concluded that the gifts were not valid as there was no evidence of acceptance by the donee. Consequently, the cancellation deeds executed by ... Appellate Tribunal Issues Involved:1. Validity of the gift deeds executed by the assessee.2. Acceptance of the gift by the donee.3. Validity of the cancellation deeds executed by the assessee.4. Applicability of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Gift-tax Act, 1958.5. Role of mutation in revenue records in establishing the transfer of property.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Gift Deeds Executed by the Assessee:The assessee executed seven deeds of conveyance of properties in favor of his daughter between 8-10-1993 and 17-2-1994, which were registered under the Registration Act. The Gift-tax Officer held that these transfers amounted to gifts as they were executed without consideration. The primary contention was whether these deeds constituted valid gifts under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.2. Acceptance of the Gift by the Donee:The acceptance of the gift by the donee is crucial for the validity of the gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Tribunal examined whether the donee had accepted the gifts. The Assessing Officer claimed that the donee had accepted the gifts as evidenced by the mutation in the revenue records. However, the assessee argued that the donee did not accept the gifts and submitted an affidavit from the donee stating the same. The Tribunal found no concrete evidence that the donee had accepted the gifts, as there was no signed document or application from the donee requesting the transfer of property in her name.3. Validity of the Cancellation Deeds Executed by the Assessee:The assessee executed another set of deeds in 1997 to cancel the earlier gifts. The Tribunal considered whether these cancellation deeds were valid. The Tribunal noted that if the first set of documents (gift deeds) were considered valid, then the cancellation deeds, which were also registered, should also be considered valid. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction should be viewed in its entirety and not in a piecemeal fashion.4. Applicability of the Provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Gift-tax Act, 1958:The Tribunal discussed the legal requirements for a valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which include the voluntary transfer of property without consideration and the acceptance of the gift by the donee. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in R. Jamuna Bhai v. M.A. Anusuya, which emphasized the necessity of acceptance for a valid gift. The Tribunal concluded that without acceptance by the donee, the gift could not be considered valid.5. Role of Mutation in Revenue Records in Establishing the Transfer of Property:The Tribunal examined the role of mutation in revenue records as evidence of transfer. The Assessing Officer argued that the mutation in the donee's favor indicated acceptance of the gift. However, the Tribunal found that the mutation alone did not constitute a valid transfer for gift-tax purposes. The Tribunal noted that the mutation could only be considered evidence of transfer if it was initiated by the donee, which was not proven in this case.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the gifts were not valid as there was no evidence of acceptance by the donee. Consequently, the cancellation deeds executed by the assessee were also considered valid. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CGT (Appeals) canceling the gift-tax assessment. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed.