O.CHINNAPPA REDDY,J. - (1.) JAI Chand, karta of a Hindu undivided family, made a gift of certain amounts of money in favour of his wife. The gifts were made through the books of account of M/s. Kanshi Ram Doongarshi Dass, the transfers being made from the fund of the Hindu undivided family of which Jai Chand was the karta.
(2.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, purporting to follow the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jana Veera Bhadrayya v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1966] 59 ITR 176 (AP) held that the gifts were exempt from Gift-tax. Shri D. N. Awasthi, learned counsel for the department, urges before us that the gift made by Jai Chand was not made by him as an individual to his wife, but as representing the Hindu undivided family. Therefore, he urges that Section 5 (1) (viii) of the Gift-tax Act was not attracted. There is no material placed before us to show that Jai Chand acted as the manager of the Hindu undivided family and not as an individual when he made the gift to his wife. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jana, Veera Bhadrayya v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1966] 59 ITR 176 (AP ). In that case as well as in the later case of Vadrem Venkappa Rao v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1974] 95 ITR 313 (AP) the learned judges, upon construction of the respective deeds of gift, held that there was nothing to indicate that the gift was being made in any capacity other than as husband. When the Tribunal found in the present case that the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Jana Veera Bhadrayya v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1966] 59 ITR 176 (AP) concluded the matter, we take it that the Tribunal was satisfied that there was nothing to indicate that the gifts had been made by Jai Chand in any capacity other than as husband.
(3.) WE might have called for a supplemental statement of the case on the question, but we do not think that it is desirable to do so at this stage, having regard to the time that has already elapsed and having regard to the fact that a supplemental statement had already been called for at an earlier stage, but not on the question now urged before us. The reference is, therefore, rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.;