1. Gift made by a father to his daughter at the time of the marriage of the daughter the gift being gold and diamond jewels was regarded as taxable gift by the Assessing Officer. The assessee''s appeal against the Assessing Officer''s order was set aside by the appellate authority and the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue being aggrieved by that order of the Tribunal, has caused this reference.
2. It was the case of the assessee before the authority below that at the time of the partition of the properties of a joint family the daughter had not been given any share and that it was the duty of the joint family to meet the marriage and maintenance expenses of the daughter and that is what has been done. That the assessee was the karta of a joint family, that there was a partition therein, that the daughter had not been given any share at the partition have not been questioned by the Revenue. It is undoubtedly an obligation of the Hindu joint family to provide for the maintenance of the female members as also for the reasonable expenses of their marriage. The expenses incurred here were for the purpose of marriage and it was an expense which the joint family was duty bound to incur. No element of gift was involved in meeting the expenses of the marriage and meeting the cost of jewellery, which was regarded as an essential part of the marriage.
3. The Tribunal has rightly referred to and relied upon the decision of this court in CGT v . M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao [1983] 143 ITR 260 wherein it was held that the settlement of eight acres and 73 cents of land in favour of the daughter as a provision for meeting the expenses of her marriage was in discharge of a legal obligation of the Hindu joint family, could not be considered as a gift in terms of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act and, therefore, could not be taxed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The jewellery given to the daughter, who had a lawful claim on the joint family for her maintenance and marriage expenses did not involve any element of gift.
4. The levy of gift-tax was beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal has rightly held that no tax was leviable.
5. We answer the question referred to us, which relates to the assessment year 1973-74, viz., as to whether gold and diamonds given by the assessee to his unmarried daughter at the time of the marriage did not amount to a gift, in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee is not represented before us, there will be no order as to costs.
