1. The assessment years involved are 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67.
2. The following question of law was referred to the Patna High Court by the Tribunal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the house property falls for inclusion in the total income of the assessee?"
3. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee has come up in appeal before us. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that the High Court in answering the question failed to appreciate the true scope and purport of the law of gift relating to Muslims. According to the Islamic law in order to effect a gift by the husband to the wife all that is necessary is to make an oral declaration and no registered deed is necessary. The gift in these cases was made in consideration of love and affection that the husband had for his wife. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on certain passages from the Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla (19th Edn.) and also the Outlines of Muhammadan Law by Fyzee (4th Edn.).
4. In our view, it is not necessary in the facts of these cases to go into the niceties of any personal law of any community to decide the controversy that has arisen in these cases. The only question involved is whether the provisions of Section 64 of the Income Tax Act are attracted in the facts of this case. Section 64 is as under:
"64. (1) In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly-
* * *
(iv) ... to the spouse of such individual from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the spouse by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart;"
5. This section was inserted to prevent evasion of tax. It must be construed in a way to achieve its object and not to frustrate it. The section is attracted where it is found that assets have been transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband. But if it is shown that the transfer was for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart, this section will not be attracted. It is not the case of the assessee that the transfer was for adequate consideration. There was no finding to show that the transfer was in connection with an agreement to live apart. Therefore, provisions of Section 64 are clearly attracted in the facts of these cases. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into any further question about the validity of the gift in accordance with the personal law of the donor.
6. We are of the view that the High Court was right in answering the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. CA No. 2594 of 1983
7. In view of our above decision, this appeal is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.