Judgment:
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.
1. The question raised in the Gift Tax Appeal filed by the assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of one Maruti car and 151 sovereigns of gold given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage reduced by the exemption of Rs. 30,000/- available under Section 5(1)(vii) constitute a gift assessable under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). We have heard Sri. P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. Counsel relied on decision of this Court in Commissioner of Gift Tax v. Sundaram Achari reported in : (2004) 266 ITR 681 and contended that like a Hindu father, a Muslim father also has a moral obligation to get his daughter well married and so much so, following the judgment above referred the above gifts given at the time of marriage do not constitute chargeable gift under Section 2(xii) of the Act. He has further pointed out that the distinction drawn by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Gift Tax v. K.B. Avurumankutty reported in (2003) : 264 ITR 177 between Hindu father and Muslim father is non-existent at least in Kerala and so much so, the Tribunal was not justified in following the decision of the Madras High Court to disallow the claim.
3. On going through the above two decisions, after hearing the counsel and on going through the statutory provisions, we are unable to agree with the opinion expressed by this Court and the Madras High Court in the above two decisions even though we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Madras High Court. In our view, it is the desire of every father, whether he is member of the Hindu community or Muslim community, to have his daughter married in the best manner possible and naturally people look persons for marrying their daughters who hold the same status, position etc. in the society as they have. Even though under Muslim law marriage is a contract, no one can expect a grown up girl to go and negotiate and enter into contract for marriage by herself. It is common knowledge that like member of any other community it is the father and the family members who arrange the marriage for the girl, no matter the Muslim marriage is treated as a contract. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed by the Madras High Court that since Muslim marriage is a contract, father is not obliged to give any gift at the time of marriage and so much so, gift given by Muslim father at the time of marriage of his daughter is not comparable with the gift given by a Hindu father because under Hindu law, it is the obligation of the father to maintain his daughter which includes giving her in marriage.
4. In our view, liability to tax and exemption has to be considered only with reference to statutory provisions and it is not for the court to make any law with reference to personal laws of the communities when the Act is a self-contained code. Parliament was well aware of the existence of various religious communities in the society, their social and legal obligations and they would have considered all these at the time of making the law. In fact, it is not as if the Parliament was unaware of gift being given to those getting married at the time of marriage. The exemption provided under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Act at the relevant time is as follows:
Section 5. Exemption in respect of certain gifts.-
(1) Gift-tax shall not be charged under this Act in respect of gifts made by any person-.
(vii) to any relative dependent upon him for support and maintenance, on the occasion of the marriage of the relative, subject to a maximum of rupees thirty thousand in value in respect of the marriage of each such relative.
From the above it is clear that exemption contemplated is in respect of gift given by a person to any relative depending upon him for support and maintenance on the occasion of the marriage of such dependent. Obviously gift by father to daughter who is dependent upon him at the time of marriage is squarely covered by the above exemption. The ceiling limit has been periodically enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and later to Rs. 1,00,000/-. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which assessee gave the gift, the exemption limit was only Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the gift as a gift given by the appellant to the daughter at the time of her marriage and he, therefore, allowed exemption upto the statutory limit of Rs. 30,000/-. When the law is very clear on the subject, we do not know what is the scope for courts interpreting and substituting their views for the statutory provisions. In our view, when gift at the time of marriage from a person to dependent relative is squarely covered by the above provision of statute, there is no authority for the court to consider personal law applicable to the parties and to grant a higher exemption or to declare the gift as not chargeable under the Gift Tax Act. In our view, irrespective of personal laws applicable to various religious communities, the purpose of having a uniform exemption limit at the time of marriage is to discourage payment of dowry under the guise of gift and to have equal status for females in the family even after marriage.
5. The next question to be considered is whether the gift of the Maruti car valuing Rs. 3.5 lakhs and 151 sovereigns of gold given to his daughter at the time of marriage is a chargeable gift or not. Even though contention of the counsel is that since the appellant had a moral and legal obligation to get his daughter well married and a reasonable gift is an incentive for the boy to marry her, we are unable to accept the contention that the gift does not constitute chargeable gift under Section 2(xii) of the Act, which reads as follows:
Gift means the transfer by one person to another of any existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or money's worth, and includes the transfer or conversion of any property referred to in Section 4, deemed to be a gift under that Section.
It is very clear from the definition clause that any voluntary payment without consideration of money or moneys worth is a gift answering the definition. Gift given in discharge of moral obligation or obligation under personal law is also gift, whether it is money or moneys worth. So much so, in our view, irrespective of the community to which the donor belongs, a gift given to the dependent at the time of marriage over and above the ceiling limit of exemption provided under Section 5(1)(vii) is chargeable to tax. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but make it clear that our decision is not based on the reasoning of the Madras High Court in the decision cited above, but based on the statutory provisions explained above.