TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (9) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....included a female assessee ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the female assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of the gift of the life insurance policy to a person who is dependent upon her for support and maintenance? " Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent-assessee had gifted a life insurance policy valued at Rs. 9,921 to her, minor son. She claimed the said gift to be exempt under section 5(1)(ix) of the Gift-tax Act. The Gift-tax Officer allowed the claim of exemption. The Commissioner of Gift-tax, after examining the record, came to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to the above exemption, on the ground that relief under section 5(1)(ix) of the Act was available only to a male assessee and not to a female assessee and set aside the order of the Gift-tax Officer. The Tribunal, on appeal, accepted the contention of the assessee and allowed the appeal by holding that the expression " person " in the aforesaid provision includes both males and females by referring to section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act and was of the view that the contex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e instead of using only masculine gender to be interpreted in the light of the section itself in the General Clauses Act. Having carefully considered the contention raised by learned counsel, we are unable to sustain the same. There is nothing in the context of the provision which can make it applicable to gifts made by males only and not by females. So far as the bracketed portion " other than his wife " is concerned, that only qualifies the words " to any person " referred to as donee. By using " other than his wife " in brackets, the Legislature has not qualified the words " by any person " referred to as donor used in sub-section (1) of section 5. The obvious meaning of the provision as it appears to us is that " such gift " as are mentioned in clauses of section 5(1)(ix) whether by male or female " to person " of all description, male or female, excepting the wife as donee, if such donee is dependent upon the donor for support and maintenance to the extent provided thereunder is exempt from gift-tax. In fact " person " is an expression not confined to masculine gender but includes the entity of any genre including a juristic person. Obviously, in the context of clause (ix) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of those who are not otherwise independent but dependent on the policy-holder. To achieve this object, it is not discernible, what difference it would make if the gift is made by a male or a female to his or her dependent. It may be noticed that even the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the Revenue does not lay down the principle differently. The principle which was accepted by their Lordships was (headnote of [1957] 32 ITR 615) : "Unless there is any ambiguity in the words used in a statute, it is not open to the court to depart from the normal rule of construction which is that the intention of the Legislature should be primarily gathered from the words which are used. It is only when the words used are ambiguous that they would stand to be examined and construed in the light of surrounding circumstances and constitutional principles and practice." In our opinion, there is nothing in the policy of the Legislature and the scope and object of the provision under consideration which compels us to cut down the natural meaning of the word " person " used in section 5(1) so as to confine its operation to male donors and not to female donors. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment that the income of the persons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) have got to be included. Sub-clause (a) refers to two distinct sets of persons bearing a relationship with ' such individual ', the assessee. One is a wife and the other is a minor child. The case of the wife is dealt with in sub-clauses (i) and (iii) and the case of a minor child is dealt in sub-clauses (ii) and (iv). Sub-clauses (i) and (iii) use the words ' her husband ' or ' the husband ' in place of the words ' such individual ' with reference to the income derived by the wife in the circumstances therein mentioned, though, it may be observed that the user of the word ' such individual ' would not have made the slightest difference to the position. Sub-clauses (ii) and (iv) which deal with a ' minor child ' use the words ' such individual ' in relation to the minor child whose income under the circumstances therein mentioned has to be included in computing the total income of ' such individual ' for the purpose of assessment. Whereas the words used in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) are specific and refer only to ' her husband ' and ' the husband ' as ' such individual ', the words used in sub-clauses (ii) and....