1969-VIL-67-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [1969] 74 ITR 328

Supreme Court of India

Date: 27.01.1969

COMMISSIONER OF GIFT-TAX, KERALA

Vs

DR. GEORGE KURUVILLA

BENCH

Judge(s)  : V. RAMASWAMY., J. C. SHAH., A. N. GROVER 

JUDGMENT

SHAH J.--The respondent claimed exemption from payment of gift-tax in respect of certain properties gifted by him (in favour of his son, Thomas), relying on the provision of section 5(1), clause (xiv), of the Gift-tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the respondent. The High Court of Kerala agreed with the Tribunal in a case referred to it.

The Tribunal did not annex the deed of gift on the interpretation of which the liability to pay the tax had to be determined, to the statement of the case. An attempt was made in the High Court on behalf of the department to tender in evidence a copy of the gift deed. The High Court rightly rejected the application, because the High Court could not add to the statement of the case. The High Court proceeded to observe that they were not satisfied that the gift deed formed part of the record. About the correctness of this statement we entertain some doubt. The respondent was claiming the benefit of an exemption from liability to pay tax in respect of a transaction of gift made by him and the burden of proving facts which entitled him to the exemption lay upon the respondent. We are unable to agree that the question as to the liability or otherwise of the respondent to pay the tax could be determined by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal without even looking at the deed of gift. We direct that the Tribunal be called upon to submit a supplementary statement of case and annex therewith the deed of gift dated February 3, 1960, executed by the respondent in favour of the children. After the supplementary statement is received by this court the appeal will be placed for hearing.

Mr. Pal on behalf of the respondent has contended that the appellant should be called upon to pay the costs of this hearing, because it is on account of the laches of the appellant that this adjournment is necessitated. We do not think that at this stage we would be justified in passing any order relating to costs.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.