2025 (9) TMI 165 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain from sale of agricultural land gifted by husband taxable in husband's hands under section 64(1)(iv)

ITAT, BANGALORE (AT) held that capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land gifted by the husband to the assessee is taxable in the hands of the ... Chargeability of capital gain in the hands of the assessee - assessee has received agricultural land, by way of gift as per gift deed from her husband - applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act and recalculation of cost of acquisition HELD THAT:- For application of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act, there has to be an existences of asset, the relationship between the transferor and transferee subsists, transfer may be direct or indirect by the spouse, absence of adequate consideration and direct or indirect income accrual to the transferee happens then provisions of section are attracted. Only exception is that the transfer is for adequate consideration. In this case, before us, there is a gift from husband to wife and there is no consideration naturally. The gift deed is in writing and registered. It is always a question that when a gift is made by the husband to the wife, there is always a good consideration being love and affection which may be assumed. However, the expression “adequate consideration” is distinguishable from good consideration and both are not same. In the case before us, apparently there is a gift from husband to the assessee without consideration and the same property is sold which has resulted in capital gain and such capital gain is chargeable to tax only in the hands of the husband. The word “income” includes capital gain which is also held so in the case of Sevantilal Maneklal Sheth [1967 (11) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] and also supported by the Circular No.12/2/62 dated 20.11.1963. Therefore, the income of capital gain on sale of the above impugned property is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee but only in the hands of her husband. As we have already held that there is no option either with the assessee or with the Revenue to not to charge above income in the hands of the husband of the assessee but to charge in the hands of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa C R [1968 (9) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Muthaiah Chettiar [1969 (2) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] also supports the above view. We hold that income from transfer of the assets which is received by the assessee as a gift from her husband is chargeable to tax in the hands of the husband of the assessee and not the assessee and therefore ground of the appeal succeeds. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether income arising on sale of immovable property gifted by a husband to his wife is includible in the husband's total income under the clubbing provision of section 64(1)(iv) when the transfer was without adequate consideration. 2. Whether the nature of the transfer (gift by husband to wife) and the absence of adequate consideration compel chargeability of capital gains in the hands of the transferor notwithstanding that the transferee filed a return declaring the gain. 3. (Related and academic in light of (1)-(2)) Whether issues raised under section 50C (valuation for stamp duty vs. declared consideration) and reference to a Valuation Officer under section 50(2) affect the chargeability when clubbing under section 64(1)(iv) applies. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Application of section 64(1)(iv) to capital gains on property gifted by husband to wife Legal framework: Section 64(1)(iv) provides that, for computing the total income of an individual, income arising to the spouse from assets transferred directly or indirectly by that individual otherwise than for adequate consideration shall be included in the transferor's income. The statutory scheme treats 'income' to include capital gains. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied upon established authorities interpreting 'adequate consideration' as excluding mere love and affection; authorities hold that the clubbing provision is mandatory and may be applied even if income is assessed in hands of transferee. Decisions referred to (and applied) include rulings that: (a) construe 'adequate consideration' to exclude presumed love and affection; (b) treat capital gains as income for clubbing purposes; and (c) confirm mandatory nature of inclusion under section 64(1)(iv). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts: a registered gift deed from husband to wife (no consideration), subsequent conversion of agricultural land and sale resulting in capital gain declared by the wife. The Court emphasized the distinction between 'good consideration' (which may include love and affection) and 'adequate consideration' (which connotes value other than mere love and affection). Since the transfer was gratuitous, it did not satisfy the proviso exception requiring adequate consideration. The Court further held that the anti-avoidance policy behind section 64(1)(iv) aims to prevent taxpayers from shifting income to spouses to reduce tax; that mandate is mandatory and neither the assessee nor the Revenue has discretion to ignore it. The mandatory nature was applied notwithstanding that the transferee had herself returned the gain and that the argument invoking clubbing was raised for the first time before the Tribunal; such timing did not bar application of the statutory provision. Ratio vs. Obiter: The ruling that capital gain arising on sale of property gifted by husband to wife (without adequate consideration) is chargeable only in the husband's hands is ratio decidendi for the case. Observations on mandatory application of section 64(1)(iv) and the non-availability of estoppel or afterthought defence are given as necessary reasoning and form part of the binding ratio for similar fact patterns. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the capital gain on the impugned transfer is not chargeable in the hands of the transferee (wife) but is chargeable in the hands of the transferor (husband) under section 64(1)(iv); ground challenging assessment of long-term capital gain in the transferee's hands thus succeeds. Issue 2 - Effect of transferee having filed an independent return and timing of raising clubbing objection Legal framework: The statutory mandate of section 64(1)(iv) prescribes inclusion in the transferor's income where conditions are satisfied; the law does not condition application upon prior or contemporaneous objection by the Revenue nor upon the transferee's voluntary return declarations. Precedent Treatment: Authorities cited establish that the absence of an earlier objection or the fact that income was returned by transferee does not preclude later application of the clubbing provision; the rule is substantive, not merely procedural. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal rejected submissions that invoking section 64(1)(iv) at the stage of appeal was an afterthought or barred by estoppel, reasoning that neither the assessee nor the assessing officer has an option to ignore the statutory anti-avoidance provision. The Court also rejected reliance on estoppel and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine as inapplicable to statutory tax liabilities. Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that timing of raising the clubbing issue and the transferee's return cannot nullify statutory application is part of the operative reasoning (ratio) relevant to determination of tax liability under section 64(1)(iv). Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the clubbing provision applies notwithstanding the transferee's independent return and the stage at which the contention was raised; the argument that late invocation should be barred was rejected. Issue 3 - Interaction with valuation/section 50C and other grounds rendered academic Legal framework: Section 50C concerns deeming values for computation of capital gains where stamp duty valuation exceeds declared consideration; reference to a Valuation Officer under section 50(2) may be relevant where value is disputed. However, these provisions operate to determine the quantum of gain in the hands of the person in whose hands the gain is taxable. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal noted that issues regarding section 50C and valuation were considered by lower authorities and raised by the appellant, but treated them as ancillary once it determined the correct person in whose hands the income is taxable. Interpretation and reasoning: Having concluded that the gain is taxable in the husband's hands under section 64(1)(iv), the Tribunal considered other grounds (including section 50C additions and valuation questions) to be academic and infructuous insofar as they affected assessment outcome in the wife's return. The Court therefore did not decide those valuation issues on their merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision to treat valuation and section 50C issues as academic in consequence of the primary holding is an application of the law to the facts and is consequential (not a substantive precedent on section 50C itself); therefore those observations are obiter with respect to valuation law but operative for the case's outcome. Conclusion: Once clubbing was applied, the contested additions under section 50C and challenges about valuation or referral to a Valuation Officer became academic; the Tribunal declined to adjudicate those matters further for the purposes of this appeal. Cross-references See Issue 1 for statutory construction and mandatory effect of section 64(1)(iv); see Issue 2 regarding the timing of invocation and estoppel; see Issue 3 regarding valuation issues rendered academic by the primary holding.