TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (3) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1972. The family consisted of five members, viz., Narayani Ammal, her son, her daughter and two grand daughters. The properties were divided into five equal shares, the value of each coming to Rs. 80,885. The share of Narayani Ammal valued at Rs. 80,885 was relinquished in favour of the other four sharers. Gift-tax proceedings were initiated against her in respect of the relinquishment. She filed a nil return to the notice under section 16 of the Act and contended that no gift was made but only a partition. That contention was rejected and the Gift-tax Officer held that there was a gift within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and he levied gift-tax on Narayani Ammal's share of property gifted in favour of the other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the Revenue urges that there had been a division among the sharers by the partition deed and the relinquishment took place since then. The question whether a gift has been created or whether a deemed gift has to be inferred depends upon the interpretation of the partition deed and as such a question of law arises, according to counsel. The partition deed is not, available before the court but an extract showing some of the clauses has been produced. Pointed attention is drawn by counsel to clauses (8) and (9). By clause (8), the total value of the properties was estimated at Rs. 4,04,425. It is further recited that the executants of the document had agreed to divide the properties into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the property of any other person and therefore section 2(xxiv)(d) did not apply. The Supreme Court held that, in that case, there was no gift by the assessee on which he was liable to pay gift-tax. The Supreme Court did riot decide the question as to what would be the position in law if there was first a division in status in a Hindu undivided family and it was followed up by a division by metes and bounds in which one of the coparceners took properties worth less than he would be entitled to under the law. Learned counsel for the Revenue placed considerable stress on this observation of the Supreme Court leaving open the question about the position in law if there was first a division in status followed by a division by metes and boun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to clauses (8) and (9) apart from clauses (10) and (11) of the partition deed. It is mentioned that it is provided in clause (10) that Smt. Narayani Ammal, the assessee, shall not have there after any manner of right, title or interest in the properties and the same had vested in the other members. Reference is also seen made to clause (11) which stipulated that property worth Rs. 1,01,106.25 has been allotted to each of the four members to ensure that the allotment of shares among the children is fair and equitable. Mention is also made about clause (23) wherein it is stated that the properties are valued for the purpose of registration at Rs. 4,04,425. On an interpretation of the various clauses, the Tribunal observed that the properti....