Case: Reva Investment Pvt.Ltd Vs. Commnr.Of Gift Tax,Gujarat-Ii

section lays down that "subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, there shall be charged for every assessment year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1958, a tax referred to as gift tax in respect of gifts made by a person during the previous year at the rate or rates specified in Schedule I. (Emphasis supplied). 9. Section 4 makes provisions for gifts to include some transfer Sub-section (1) clause (a), which is relevant for the purpose of the cse, reads as under : "4(1) For the purpose of this Act -(a) where property is transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration, the amount by which the [value of the property as on the date of the transfer and determined in the manner laid down in Schedule II] exceeds the value of the consideration shall be deemed to be a gift made by the transferor.[Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in any case where the property is transferred to the Government or where the value of the consideration for the transfer is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India]" 10. Ordinarily, a gift is a transfer of property without consideration, but for the purpose of the Act a transfer for inadequate consideration is to be deemed to be a gift under section 4(1)(a). By the inclusive definition in Section 2(xii) of the Act a `deemed gift is also a gift. The provision of deemed gift in section 4(1)(a) is intended to bring within the purview of the tax such transactions which are entered between the parties to evade the tax. 11. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the transaction made by the assessee can be said to be a `deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. For invoking the deeming provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Act inquiries have to be made regarding - (i) the existence of a `transfer of property (ii) the extent of consideration given i.e. whether the consideration is adequate. It is necessary for the assessing officer to show that the property has been transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration. The finding as to inadequacy of the consideration is the essential sine-qua-non for application of the provisions of `deemed gift. The provision is to be construed in a broad commercial sense and not in a narrow sense. In order to hold that a particular transfer is not for adequate consideration the difference between a true value of the property transferred and the consideration that passed for the same must be appreciated in contest of the facts of the particular case. If the transaction involves transfer of certain property in lieu of certain other property received then the process of evaluation of the two items of property should be similar and on such evaluation if it is found that here is appreciable difference between the value of the two properties then the transaction will be taken as a `deemed gift to the extent as provided in the Section. It is to be found that the transaction was on inadequate consideration and the partied deliberately showed the valuation of the two properties as the same to evade tax. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn merely because according to the assessing officer there is some difference between the valuation of the property transferred and the consideration received.12. In the present case, as noted earlier, the face value of the share of the 12 fully paid subsidiary companies of the assessee was Rs. 5,69,400/- which was taken to be the value of the jewellery that was transferred in exchange by the assessee to the subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies had not other asset. The value of the jewellery as determined by the assessing officer being Rs. 13,91,350/- the real value of the shares may be said to be Rs. 13,91,350/-, but there was thus not gift involved in the transaction for whatever is the value of the jewellery is infact the value of the shares transferred in consideration. In the circumstances the assessing officer committed an error in treating the transaction between the parties as a `deemed gift.13. At this stage we may notice a few decision of different High Courts to which our attention was drawn. In the case of Biresar Sarkar v. Gift Tax Officer, 1997(223) ITR 404 (Cal)] the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice under section 16 of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that as far as the question of inadequacy of the consideration is concerned no answer could be given by the respondent authorities as to the adoption of different standards for the purpose of evaluating the value of the assets transferred and for evaluation the consideration received.14. The Madras High Court in the case of C.G.T. v. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd., 1981(131) ITR 313 (Mad)] observed that the provision is designed to check evasion of tax by persons transferring properties for inadequate consideration; If a person had effected a gift which would be without consideration, he would be liable to be taxed under the Act; the same person may, in order to avoid the tax, transfer properties for a paltry consideration so as to get out of the operation of the Act then he can be made liable under section 4(1)(a). It is this attempt at evasion which was sought to be thwarted by enacting Section 4(1)(a).15. A similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jacobs (P) ltd., 19999(237) ITR 433.16. The High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Gift-Tax v. D. Surendranath Reddy, 1998(233) ITR 21 observed that adequate consideration is not necessarily, what is ultimately determined by some-one else as market value; unless the price was such as to shock the conscience of the court, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise than for adequate consideration.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]e question which arises for determination in this case is whether the transaction made by the assessee can be said to be a `deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.For invoking the deeming provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Act inquiries have to be made regarding - (i) the existence of a `transfer of property (ii) the extent of consideration given i.e. whether the consideration is adequate. It is necessary for the assessing officer to show that the property has been transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration. The finding as to inadequacy of the consideration is the essential sine-qua-non for application of the provisions of `deemed gift. The provision is to be construed in a broad commercial sense and not in a narrow sense. In order to hold that a particular transfer is not for adequate consideration the difference between a true value of the property transferred and the consideration that passed for the same must be appreciated in contest of the facts of the particular case. If the transaction involves transfer of certain property in lieu of certain other property received then the process of evaluation of the two items of property should be similar and on such evaluation if it is found that here is appreciable difference between the value of the two properties then the transaction will be taken as a `deemed gift to the extent as provided in the Section. It is to be found that the transaction was on inadequate consideration and the partied deliberately showed the valuation of the two properties as the same to evade tax. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn merely because according to the assessing officer there is some difference between the valuation of the property transferred and the consideration received.12. In the present case, as noted earlier, the face value of the share of the 12 fully paid subsidiary companies of the assessee was Rs. 5,69,400/- which was taken to be the value of the jewellery that was transferred in exchange by the assessee to the subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies had not other asset. The value of the jewellery as determined by the assessing officer being Rs. 13,91,350/- the real value of the shares may be said to be Rs. 13,91,350/-, but there was thus not gift involved in the transaction for whatever is the value of the jewellery is infact the value of the shares transferred in consideration. In the circumstances the assessing officer committed an error in treating the transaction between the parties as a `deemed gift.13. At this stage we may notice a few decision of different High Courts to which our attention was drawn. In the case of Biresar Sarkar v. Gift Tax Officer, 1997(223) ITR 404 (Cal)] the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice under section 16 of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that as far as the question of inadequacy of the consideration is concerned no answer could be given by the respondent authorities as to the adoption of different standards for the purpose of evaluating the value of the assets transferred and for evaluation the consideration received.14. The Madras High Court in the case of C.G.T. v. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd., 1981(131) ITR 313 (Mad)] observed that the provision is designed to check evasion of tax by persons transferring properties for inadequate consideration; If a person had effected a gift which would be without consideration, he would be liable to be taxed under the Act; the same person may, in order to avoid the tax, transfer properties for a paltry consideration so as to get out of the operation of the Act then he can be made liable under section 4(1)(a). It is this attempt at evasion which was sought to be thwarted by enacting Section 4(1)(a).15. A similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jacobs (P) ltd., 19999(237) ITR 433.16. The High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Gift-Tax v. D. Surendranath Reddy, 1998(233) ITR 21 observed that adequate consideration is not necessarily, what is ultimately determined by some-one else as market value; unless the price was such as to shock the conscience of the court, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise than for adequate consideration.