IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07/04/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN TAX CASE No.231 of 1998 The Commissioner of Gift-tax Coimbatore .. Applicant -Vs- K.B.Avurumankutty .. Respondent This tax case is referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D' in R.A.No.157/Mds/96 (G.T.A.No. 18/Mds/94  A/y. 199 1-92 ). !For Applicant : Ms.Pushya Sitaraman Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax ^For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkataraman Senior Counsel for Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar :ORDER (Order of the Court was made by V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.) The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue was: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the value of a car and jewellery given by the assessee to his daughter at the time of her marriage cannot be subjected to gift-tax?" 2. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said gift of car and jewellery came within the exception. However, we cannot restrain ourselves from quoting the finding of the Tribunal. "In the case under consideration before us, the father has gifted a car and jewellery to his daughter. Though the family is a muslim family, there is a legal obligation on the part of the father to safeguard the marriage of his daughter. Therefore, in order to avoid talaq, the assessee had to give certain properties to his daughter at the time of her marriage. A car and the jewellery given to the daughter by the assessee for her well being who in turn is under legal obligation to incur such expenditure at the time of her marriage cannot said to be voluntary and, therefore, the provisions of Gift Tax are not attracted and it cannot be termed as gift." We have deliberately quoted the finding of the Tribunal, because in our opinion, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, that finding cannot be sustained. 3. In the first place, there is nothing on record, and there is no basis to suggest that if the Car and the jewellery were not given, there would have been a talaq. It is to say the least, a baseless finding. Further the Tribunal has held that it is almost an involuntary payment under the compulsion and has therefore considered it to be within the mischief of the Gift Act. There also the Tribunal is entirely wrong. Obviously, there was no compulsion on the part of the father to give any car or jewellery to his daughter. Last but not the least, the Tribunal has held that the father was under a legal duty to preserve the marriage. We fail to see any such legal duty in the father. Muslim marriage is a contract between the man and the woman. There is absolutely no place for the bride's or bridegroom's father in this contract. On all the counts, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is wholly incorrect. The order is, therefore, set aside. We restore the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The question under reference is answered in favour of the Revenue. No order as to the costs. Index: yes Internet: yes To: The Commissioner of Gift-tax, Coimbatore. nsv/ 