ORDER
Sri S.L. Banarjee, Judicial Member
1. These appeals were filed by the Department against order of the Ld. AAC dated 18-12-1986 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The cross objections of the assessee are in support of the order of the Ld. AAC.
2. The common ground raised in these appeals is in respect of deduction of Rs. 10,000 under Section 5(1)(vii) of the GT Act, 1957 (the Act). The assessee-HUF in these two assessment years made gift of gold ornaments and silver articles to eldest and second daughters-in-law Smt. K. Girija Kumari and Smt. K. Sujata respectively and claimed exemption under Sections 5(1)(vii) of the Act. The Gift-tax Officer refused to entertain the claim as according to him daughters-in-law were not dependent on the assessee at the time of marriage. It was argued by the Id. counsel for the assessee before Ld. AAC that the expression on the occasion of marriage is not equivalent in meaning to the term but it includes for the occasion of marriage and not as very date or time of marriage. They also claimed that the gifts were made after celebration of the marriage. The Ld. AAC was of the opinion that relative and dependent for support and maintenance are not defined in the Act and in absence of definition they include even relatives by marriage. It was also submitted that the assessee being HUF the daughters-in-law had to be dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance. This is widely known fact in the joint Hindu families and not to be disputed. He, therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 5(l)(vii) of the Act.
3. The ld. departmental representative submitted that the Ld. AAC should not have treated the daughters-in-law as dependent relatives of the assessee-HUF and, therefore, deductions allowed by him were erroneous. Hence, the order of the GTO should be restored. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. AAC had given valid reasons of accepting the deduction and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. AAC.
4. We have considered the rival submissions, facts and materials on record. New Webster’s dictionary defines ‘occasion’, the incidental cause, motive or reason for a particular action.
In the case of Ideal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hiraschfleld [1947] 1 KB 442 held that the expression ‘on the occasion’ … is not equivalent in meaning to the phrase “on the same date as” and “occasion” is not a period of 24 hours. If we say that a man took out an insurance policy on the occasion of his marriage we do not mean “on the date of his marriage”, with implication that the coincidence in time was designed and not accidental.
The Supreme Court in the case of Coffee Board v. Joint GTO AIR 1971 SC 870 opined that the term ‘occasion’ attempts of two meanings-“to cause or to be immediate cause.
5. The next condition is to be satisfied for exemption is that donee must be dependent. There is no definition under the Gift- tax Act of dependent. The Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 defines ‘dependent’ vide Section 2(g)(ii(b). In interpreting ‘dependent’ in the context of above section of the Expenditure Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Expenditure-tax v. Darshan Surendra Parekh AIR 1968 SC 1125 had expressed that it includes wives and unmarried daughters of coparceners and widows of the family.
6. In the absence of definition in the Gift-tax Act we feel that the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darshan Surendra Parekh’s case (supra) should be applied in determining the term ‘dependent’ in the case of gift-tax.
7. Again it is pertinent to note, that Section 5(l)(vii) of the Act does not require that the dependent should be wholly and mainly dependent for support and maintenance. Whereas, in the Expenditure-tax Act Section 2(g) defines ‘dependent’ who is an individual, spouse or minor child and any person wholly and mainly dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance. The condition, therefore, that the donee should be wholly and mainly dependent on the donor is not a must in the case of Gift-tax for exemption under Sections 5(l)(vii) of the Act,
8. The next point is whether daughters-in-law can be treated as relatives of HUF. In this respect we feel that the Circular No. 1-59/GT dated 27-2-1959 of CBDT is beneficial to the assessee which runs as under :
Under Clause (vii) of Section 5(1), exemption is given up to a maximum of Rs. 10,000 in value on the occasion of the marrige of any relative (male or female) dependent upon the donor for support and maintenance. If the gift exceeds this amount, only the excess will be considered in computing the taxable gift. Normal expenditure incurred on the marriage itself like expenses on a feast, etc. will not be taken into account in computing the value of the gifts. The exemption will be allowed also in cases of gifts made by a Hindu undivided family to members of the family dependent upon the family for support and maintenance.
The above Circular clearly shows that the CBDT had no objection to treat male or female dependent as relative of an HUF.
9. In the above circumstances, we hold that the gift to the extent of Rs. 10,000 in this case is allowed as deduction.
10. In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed while the cross objections supporting the order of the Ld. AAC have become infructuous.