Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. By Section 47(iii) it is provided that " nothing contained in Section 45. shall apply to any transfer of capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust ". The term " gift " is not defined in the Income-tax Act; but Section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act provides that " where property is transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration, the amount by which the market value of the property at the date of the transfer exceeds the value of the consideration shall be deemed to be a gift made by the transferor ". Of course, this provision is only for the purposes of the Gift-tax Act. The term "gift" is denned in the Transfer of Property Act too. I am of opinion that, of the two definitions, the definition in the Gift-tax Act, in spite of its being only for the purposes of the Gift-tax Act, must be preferred when applied to the Income-tax Act, If the language of the Income-tax Act is so beyond doubt that an amount which had been deemed to be a gift under the Gift-tax Act is again made liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, there cannot be any doubt that the legislature has power to tax the amount a second time (see Reid's Trustees v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1929] 14 T.C. 512 (C. Sa.).). But, unless such clear intention appears, unless the language clearly warrants it, it is neither proper nor correct to tax the same amount under the Income-tax Act if it has already been taxed as a gift under the Gift-tax Act. It is also my opinion that there is an intimate connection between taxing statutes like the Income-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Act, the Gift-tax Act and the Estate Duty Act. Sections 50A and 50B of the Estate Duty Act reveal this intention of the legislature; and the absence of such a provision in the Income-tax Act, in my opinion, does not indicate an intention contra, because, as I have already indicated, the language of the relevant provisions (like Sections 45, 47, 48 and 52) is clear enough to bring out this. Now that the respondent has already been taxed for the amount of Rs. 48,500 under the Gift-tax Act, I do not think the same amount can be taxed under the Income-tax Act, nor does the language of the relevant provisions, viz., Sections 45, 47, 48 and 52, warrant this.

" 47. Transactions not regarded as transfer.--Nothing contained in Section 45 shall apply to the following transfers:--....
(iii) any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust."

25. But the transaction hen; in question does not fall under any of the categories comprehended in the above clause. It was gaid that it would be a gift under the Gift-tax Act. Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act defines the expression " Gift " ; and Section 4, Clauses (a) and (b), enact: