2011 (7) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as transferred out of love and affection and hence there is an element of gift involved while the petition for divorce was filed on the same date of settlement and the same was pending before the Court?" 2. The appellant had been assessed to Income-tax, by the Income-tax Officer, City Ward IV(2), Chennai. For the assessment year 1989-90, a notice, under section 16 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, was issued, on 18-12-1996, on the basis of a survey report. It was found that the appellant had made a gift of an immovable property, namely, a vacant land, measuring an extent of two grounds and 376 sq.ft., situated in Puliyur Village, at present known as Anna Nagar, Kodambakkam. The said property had been settled in favour of B. Jayachandran, the hu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd B. Jayachandran, in the name of the assessee. There was no love and affection subsisting between them, on the date of the execution of the settlement deed, on 19-12-1988, as the appellant had on the same day filed a petition for divorce. Therefore, the transaction would not constitute a valid gift. 4. Considering the rival contentions raised on behalf of the assessee, as well as the Department, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had confirmed the order of assessment, by its order, dated 9-8-1999. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'D', challenging the levy of gift tax. In the meanwhile, the department had initiated recovery proceedings and h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal is contrary to the law and the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal ought to have held that the transaction between the assessee and her husband cannot be termed as a gift, when a divorce petition had been filed before the concerned Family Court and an order had also been passed, subsequently. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the assessee is that the assessee and her husband had been living separately since, 19-9-1985, whereas, the settlement of property was made, only on 19-12-1988. He had also submitted that a divorce had taken place, on 29-6-1990, dissolving the marriage between the assessee and her husband B. Jayachandran. There was no collusion or fraud or undue influence exerted on the....