- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Gift Tax, Gujarat v. Chhotalal Mohanlal .
Factual and Procedural Background
M/s Chhotalal Vedilal was constituted on 12 November 1958 with three partners—Chhotalal Mohanlal (the assessee) holding a 7-anna share, Gunvantilal Chhotalal holding 4 annas, and Pravinchandra Vedilal holding 5 annas. On 9 November 1961 (relevant to Assessment Year 1963-64) the partnership was re-constituted: Pravinchandra retired; Ramniklal Chhotalal was inducted with a 4-anna share; the assessee’s share was reduced to 4 annas; and the assessee’s minor sons, Kiritkumar and Deepak Kumar, were admitted to the benefits of partnership with 12 % and 13 % shares respectively. The capital standing in the assessee’s name remained unchanged.
The Gift Tax Officer (GTO) treated the assessee’s reduction of 19 % share in profits and goodwill as a taxable gift in favour of his minor sons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed that a gift occurred but valued the “right to receive future profits” at a higher figure. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, holding that no existing property had been transferred and therefore no gift tax could be levied. At the revenue’s request, the Gujarat High Court was asked:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the benefit of partnership given to minors Kiritkumar Chhotalal and Deepak Kumar Chhotalal was a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958?”
The High Court answered in the negative, upholding the Tribunal. The revenue obtained a certificate and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the admission of the assessee’s minor sons to the benefits of partnership, coupled with the consequent reduction of the assessee’s share, constituted a “gift” of existing property within the meaning of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
- Whether goodwill of a partnership firm is “property” capable of being the subject-matter of a taxable gift.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Revenue)
- Contended that the GTO’s view was correct: the assessee’s relinquishment of 19 % share in profits and goodwill in favour of his minor sons amounted to a taxable gift.
- Relied on several High Court decisions supporting the proposition that surrender of partnership interest (including goodwill) without consideration is a gift.
The respondent was served but did not appear; no counter-arguments are recorded.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Khushal Khemgar Shah v. Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla, (1970) 1 SCC 415 | Goodwill of a firm is an “asset”/property. | Used to establish that goodwill is property capable of transfer under the Gift-tax Act. |
| CGT v. Nani Gopal Mondal, (1984) 150 ITR 469 (Calcutta HC) | Transfer of a partner’s share, including goodwill, is a taxable gift. | Cited as persuasive authority supporting the revenue’s stance that relinquishment of goodwill attracts gift tax. |
| M.K. Kuppuraj v. CGT, (1985) 153 ITR 481 (Madras HC) | Admission of minors and consequent reduction of partner’s share without consideration constitutes a gift. | Relied upon to show that similar transactions have been taxed as gifts. |
| Sirehmal Nawalkha v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 714 (Rajasthan HC) | Relinquishment of partnership interest amounts to a gift when without consideration. | Bolstered the argument that the assessee’s act created a taxable event. |
| CGT v. Premji Trikamji Jobanputra, (1982) 133 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) | Partnership reconstitution leading to reduced share can amount to a gift. | Further persuasive support for the revenue. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began with the statutory definition of “gift” in Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, emphasising that the transfer must be of “existing movable or immovable property.” Citing Khushal Khemgar Shah, the Court reaffirmed that goodwill is property. By admitting the minors to fixed shares, the assessee effectively transferred a 19 % money value in the firm’s goodwill to them without consideration. This satisfied both limbs of Section 2(xii): there was a voluntary transfer, and it related to existing property (goodwill).
The Court rejected the Tribunal’s view that only future profits were affected. Instead, it held that the arrangement diminished the assessee’s proprietary right in an existing asset—goodwill—and correspondingly enhanced the minors’ entitlement. The line of High Court precedents (Nani Gopal Mondal, Kuppuraj, Sirehmal Nawalkha, Premji Jobanputra) was found consistent with this conclusion. As valuation was not disputed, the Court confined itself to the legal character of the transaction and declared it a taxable gift.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; the benefit conferred on the minors constitutes a “gift” under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
Consequently, the High Court’s decision is reversed and the order of the Gift Tax Officer stands restored. The ruling clarifies that (i) goodwill is property for gift-tax purposes and (ii) any reduction of a partner’s share that enhances another’s share without consideration is a taxable transfer. While grounded in existing authorities, the decision reinforces uniformity across jurisdictions on taxation of such partnership re-arrangements. No costs were awarded owing to the respondent’s non-appearance.
Ranganath Misra, J.— This appeal is by certificate. Under a deed of partnership dated November 12, 1958, a firm by name M/s Chhotalal Vedilal came into existence with three partners, Chhotalal Mohanlal (the assessee), Gunvantilal Chhotalal and Pravinchandra Vedilal. These three partners had 7 annas, 4 annas and 5 annas share respectively in the firm. This position continued until November 9, 1961 relevant to Assessment Year 1963-64 with which this appeal is concerned, when a change took place in the constitution of the firm. Under the new deed, Pravinchandra Vedilal retired; no change took place in respect of Gunvantilal Chhotalal; one Ramniklal Chhotalal became a partner with 4 annas share. The share of the assessee Chhotalal Mohanlal was reduced to 4 annas; for the remaining 4 annas two minor sons of Chhotalal being Kiritkumar and Deepak Kumar were admitted to the benefits only of the firm — Kiritkumar having 12 per cent and Deepak Kumar having 13 per cent. No alteration was, however, made regarding the share capital standing in the name of the assessee.
2. The Gift Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had deprived himself of 19 per cent share in the profits and had gifted away 19 per cent share in the goodwill of the firm in favour of his two minor sons. He valued the goodwill and treated 19 per cent thereof as taxable gift. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner before whom the assessee appealed adopted a different stand. According to him, the gift was not of a share of the goodwill but in respect of the right to receive future profits. He valued that right and since the amount was higher than what the Income Tax Officer had estimated, following the requirements of law he enhanced the quantum. In further appeal by the assessee the Tribunal held that in the circumstances of the case there could be no gift of goodwill. As appears from the statement of the case, the revenue did not seek to support the order of the Income Tax Officer but pleaded for sustaining the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal further found that the right to receive future profits could not be subject-matter of a gift as the transfer did not relate to existing property. According to it, the situation did not give rise to any gift which could be made liable to tax under the Act. The following question relevant for the purpose of the appeal was referred to the High Court for its opinion at the instance of the revenue:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the benefit of partnership given to minors Kiritkumar Chhotalal and Deepak Kumar Chhotalal was a gift under the Gift Tax Act, 1958?”
The High Court answered the question against the revenue and upheld the view of the Tribunal. This appeal has, therefore, been carried by the revenue.
3. In spite of service of notice of appeal the respondent has not appeared. Counsel appearing in support of the appeal has contended that the order of the Gift Tax Officer was right and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal and the High Court had gone wrong in holding that the arrangement under the deed of November 9, 1961 did not give rise to a taxable event under the Act, so far as the assessee was concerned.
4. “Gift” is defined in Section 2(xii) of the Act:
“ ‘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 of any property deemed to be a gift under Section 4.”
In support of the appeal, learned counsel further relies upon decisions of different High Courts to which we shall presently refer. Before doing so it would be appropriate to indicate that in Khushal Khemgar Shah v. Khorshed Banu Dadiba Boatwalla (1970) 1 SCC 415, AIR 1970 SC 1147, (1970) 3 SCR 689 this Court has held that goodwill of a firm is an asset. In CGT v. Nani Gopal Mondal (1984) 150 ITR 469 after referring to a number of authorities of this Court and different High Courts a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court concluded thus:
“From the cases cited above, it appears that goodwill of a partnership business is a property of the firm in which a partner is entitled to a share. Although the above cases are under the Estate Duty Act, yet the principle laid down in the said cases regarding the nature of goodwill of a firm and the right of a partner in respect thereof is applicable to the instant case. In this connection, it may be mentioned that according to Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, property of a firm includes goodwill of the business. Further, according to Section 29(2), if a partner transfers his interest and the transferring partner ceases to be a partner, the transferee is entitled as against the remaining partners to receive the share of the assets of the firm to which the transferring partner is entitled to. It further appears that under proviso to Section 53 of the Indian Partnership Act, in case of dissolution, a partner or his representative may buy the goodwill of the firm and, under Section 55(1) of the Act, in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the goodwill shall, subject to contract between the parties, be included in the assets and it may be sold either separately or alongwith other properties of the firm.... Upon transfer, the share or interest in the property of the firm of the transferring partner including the goodwill becomes the share or interest of the transferee. In the instant case, Nani Gopal Mondal by the deed of gift transferred his share or interest in the firm which included his share of goodwill also. Hence, for the purpose of payment of gift tax, the value of one-third share of the assessee in the goodwill shall also be taken in account.”
In M.K Kuppuraj v. CGT (1985) 153 ITR 481 (Mad HC), the Madras High Court was called upon to deal with a case of this type where minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership firm and the assessee's interest in the firm suffered the detriment by relinquishment of a portion of his interest. The High Court found that relinquishment of 8 per cent profit was in favour of the minors who were admitted without any consideration. It held that the transaction constituted a gift by the assessee in favour of the minors. The ratio in Sirehmal Nawalkha v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 714 (Raj HC) as also in CGT v. Premji Trikamji Jobanputra (1982) 133 ITR 317 (Bom HC) support the stand of the revenue that the transaction constitutes a “gift”.
5. Once goodwill is taken to be property and with the admission of the two minors to the benefits of partnership in respect of a fixed share, the right to the money value of the goodwill stands transferred; the transaction does constitute a gift under the Act. Since there has been no dispute about valuation of the goodwill as made by the Gift Tax Officer, with the conclusion that there has been a gift in respect of a part of the goodwill, the answer to the question referred has to be in the affirmative, that is, it constitutes a gift under the Act. The appeal is allowed and the conclusion of the High Court is reversed. Since the respondent has not appeared, there will be no order for costs.
Alert