A bona fide gift of money by entries in the books of account is complete and the donee has enjoyment of the same to the exclusion of the donor, even if the money is subsequently invested in a family business.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference arises out of assessment to estate duty of the estate of late Punam Chand Baid, who died on September 26, 1960. The facts found or which are matters on record are, inter alia, as follows; during his lifetime the deceased made a gift of Rs. 1,50,000 on August 25, 1955, to one Hulaschand Baid, the accountable person, by entries in the books of account of his money-lending business transferring the amount in favour of the donee. The amount remained in the said business thereafter to the credit of the donee till the death of the deceased. On February 12, 1956, the deceased adopted the donee as his son, after which the business was carried on by a HUF consisting of the deceased and the donee.

( 2 ) IN assessing estate duty, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that as the deceased was. a coparcener and the karta of the HUF, he was not entirely excluded from the possession and enjoyment of the amount of the gift. He also found that the loan was carrying interest at the rate of 4. 1/2% which was lower than the usual market rate. He concluded that bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property given in gift was not retained by the donee to the entire exclusion of the donor and Section 10 of the E. D. Act was attracted. He included the amount in computing the principal value of the estate.

( 3 ) ON appeal preferred by the accountable person against the said assessment, the Appellate Controller held that though the donee assumed possession and enjoyment of the gifted property, the donor was not actually excluded from the benefit and enjoyment of the same as the amount retained in the business benefited both the donor and the donee. He upheld the inclusion of the said amount in the value of the estate.

( 4 ) ON further appeal preferred by the accountable person, the Tribunal found that the gift, being money transferred by entries in the books of account of the business, was complete and the donee had enjoyment of the same to the exclusion of the donor and, as such, the provisions of s, 10 of the E. D. Act were not attracted. The Tribunal held further that irrespective of the rate at which interest was paid, the transaction had all the characteristics of a valid gift. The contention of the accountable person was upheld.

( 5 ) AT the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court, as a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, under Section 64 (1) of the E. D. Act :" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 gifted by the deceased on April 25, 1955, to Hulaschand Baid was not liable to be included in the estate of the deceased under the provisions of Section 10 of the E. D. Act, 1953" ?

( 6 ) AT the hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the gift in question was made in favour of the adopted son and the money remained throughout in the books of the family under control of the donor, the karta. It was not a fact, that the donee enjoyed the amount to the entire exclusion of the donor.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the accountable person contended to the contrary and submitted that the gift being a gift of a movable asset, i. e. , money, remained invested for the purpose of earning interest and, in fact, earned interest and, therefore, could not be included in the estate of the deceased.

( 8 ) IN support of the respective contentions of the parties, the following cases were cited at the Bar : (a) Abdul Alim v. CED. In this case, the deceased made a gift of Rs. 44,000 to his two minor sons. The money was subsequently brought in as capital in a firm in which the deceased was a partner and the minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On these facts it was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that when the amount given in gift was contributed as an asset of the firm, the minors ceased to enjoy exc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document