Judgment :- N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. Smt.Valli Alagappan, Chennai (assessee), by letter dated 12.4.1982 addressed to M/s.M&L Investments Private Limited, Chennai, informed her willingness to transfer jewellery or funds or property representing the same owned by her of an approximate value of Rs.7.50 lakhs in favour of the said company subject to the terms and conditions, viz., (i) she shall have the right to revoke the transfer after the expiry of 74 (seventy four) months from the date of transfer; (ii) if the transfer is not revoked within three months after the expiry of the said period of 74 months for any reason whatsoever, the power of revocation will lapse; and (iii) during the said period of 74 months the transfer shall be irrevocable and she shall have no right, title or interest of whatsoever in or upon the said property transferred and the company shall own, enjoy the property as absolute owner and deal with the property in any manner it likes. The letter also stipulated that the transferee shall be bound to return the property after the revocation of transfer and the transferee is also given the power to change or alter or remake the property or ornaments made weight by weight. The assessee relinquished all her rights and benefits that may be considered as accruing to her during the period of 74 months. The transferee company accepted to receive the property and conveyed its acceptance to the terms and conditions by making an endorsement on the letter dated 12.4.1982. 2. The above transfer gave rise to interesting questions under the Gift-tax Act, and the first question that arose was whether there was a gift by the transfer of property in favour of the company by the assessee and second question that arose was how the value of the transferred property should be evaluated, and if it is incapable of evaluation, whether the transfer is chargeable to gift-tax. The Gift-tax Officer held that it was a gift as the transfer had been made voluntarily and without consideration with an intent to diminish directly or indirectly the value of the transferor's property and to increase the value of the property of the company to the extent of the value of the property transferred. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no gift as the transfer was revocable. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no gift as the transfer was revocable. He held that it was a void gift and hence, he felt that it was not necessary to go into the question of valuation of the gift. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal held that there was a bequest of jewellery and the assessee had divested herself of the jewellery in favour of the company at least for a period of 74 months. The Appellate Tribunal however did not go into the question of valuation of the gift as it found that the lower authorities have not applied section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act and determined the value of the gift according to Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules. The Appellate Tribunal therefore remitted the matter to the Gift-tax Officer to determine the value of the gift applying the provisions of section 6(2) of the Gift -tax Act read with Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules after allowing the assessee to raise all contentions relating to the value of the gift. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has sought for a reference, and the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of jewellery (27 items of gold, diamonds, rubies, etc. stated to be of the value of Rs.7.5 lakhs) to the company called, M/s.M & L Investments Pvt. Ltd. amounts to a taxable gift within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act?" 4. We find that the question referred to us is not happily framed as the Appellate Tribunal has not considered the question whether the transfer would amount to a taxable gift within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act. As a matter of fact, the Appellate Tribunal has remitted the matter to consider the applicability of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act read with Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules, and we reframe the question as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of jewellery (27 items of gold, diamonds, rubies, etc. stated to be of the value of Rs.7.5 lakhs) to the company called, M/s.M & L Investments Pvt. Ltd. would amount to a gift?" 5. Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the transfer of property did not amount to gift as the transfer is revocable and what was granted under the deed of transfer was only a right to use the jewellery for a period of 74 months and it does not constitute a gift. Learned counsel also submitted that the provisions of section 6(2) are not applicable in the case of gift of ornaments or jewellery, they do not generate income and since there was no income from the jewellery or ornaments gifted, the provisions of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act are not applicable and the value of the property transferred cannot be charged to tax. Learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS v. C.G.T. (251 ITR 883) and in C.I.T. v. B.C.SRINIVASA SETTY (128 ITR 294). 6. Mr.T.C.A.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, the transfer in question is a gift as the transfer was made without consideration. As far as the applicability of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act is concerned, he submitted that the Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter to the Gift-tax Officer and hence the points raised by the learned counsel for the assessee do not arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned counsel for the Revenue. The expression, 'gift' is defined in section 2 (xii) of the Gift-tax Act and the said section in so far as it is material for the purpose of the case reads as under:- "2(xii). 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned counsel for the Revenue. The expression, 'gift' is defined in section 2 (xii) of the Gift-tax Act and the said section in so far as it is material for the purpose of the case reads as under:- "2(xii). "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 or conversion of any property referred to in section 4, deemed to be a gift under that section." The pre-conditions to treat a transfer of property as gift are,(i) there must be a transfer by one person to another; and (ii) there must be a transfer of an existing movable or immovable property voluntarily and without consideration in money or money's worth. The phrase, 'transfer of property' is defined in section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act and the section reads as under:- "2(xxiv) "transfer of property" means any disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment or other alienation of property and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes- (a) the creation of a trust in property; (b) the grant or creation of any lease, mortgage, charge, easement, licence, power, partnership or interest in property; (c) the exercise of a power of appointment (whether general, special or subject to any restrictions as to the persons in whose favour the appointment may be made) of property vested in any person not the owner of the property, to determine its disposition in favour of any person other than the donee of the power; and (d) any transaction entered into by any person with intent thereby to diminish directly or indirectly the value of his own property and to increase the value of the property of any other person." The other relevant section which is necessary to be noticed is section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act and the section reads as under:- "6(2) Where a person makes a gift which is not revocable for a specified period, the value of the property gifted shall be the capitalised value of the income from such property during the period for which the gift is not revocable." It is also necessary to refer to Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules, 1958 which is as under:- "11. (1) in the case of property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act, the capitalised value of the income shall be taken to be the product of the number of complete years included in the period for which the gift is not revocable and the average of the income received from the property during the three years or such lesser period of complete years in which such property was in existence, preceding the previous year for the year of assessment after discounting it at a rate of 4 per cent per annum. Provided that where the property was in existence for less than one complete year preceding the previous year for the year of assessment or came into existence in the previous year for the year of assessment, the income from such property for one complete year shall be the income which would have been receivable, if the property were in existence for one complete year. (2) The income from such property for each of the years for which it is to be determined shall, for the purposes of this rule, be the amount of the total receipt received or receivable for each such year, reduced by the amount of expenditure which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer would reasonable be incurred for the purposes of making or earning the income: Provided that where there are no receipts or where the total of the receipts is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, lower than the rece4ipts which an owner of ordinary prudence would obtain or earn on such property or properties similar to that during the relevant period, the Assessing Officer shall, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the income on the basis of receipts which such owner would obtain." 8. There is no dispute that the assessee had transferred her jewellery in favour of the limited company and the terms of the transfer letter clearly show that the assessee had no right to revoke the transfer for a minimum period of 74 months and during the period of irrevocability of transfer, the assessee had no right, title or interest whatsoever in the property transferred in favour of the limited company. The letter of transfer also clearly shows that the transferee shall have the right to own and enjoy the property as an absolute owner thereof and deal with the said property in any manner as the transferee likes. Though there are clauses for the return of ornaments transferred in favour of the assessee after the power of revocation is exercised, the transferee is also given the power to change, alter or remake the ornaments made weight by weight or otherwise. A fair reading of the letter dated 12.4.1982 clearly shows that the assessee had no right over the ornaments in possession during the period of irrevocability and the transferor has lost all the rights over the ornaments during the period, and the transferee shall have the complete right over the ornaments in question. The terms of the letter also show that the assessee had the right of revocation only after the expiry of the period of 74 months from the date of transfer and she should exercise the power of revocation within a period of three months from the date of expiry of 74 months and in case she fails to revoke within the said period of three months, the power of revocation would lapse. 9. We have already seen the definition of the expression, "gift" and the definition of "gift" contemplates the transfer of property from one person to another. The term, "transfer of property" under section 2 (xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act is fairly wide and comprehensive enough to include any disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement or delivery of property, and it also includes the creation of a trust in property and the grant or creation of any lease, mortgage, charge, easement, licence, power, partnership or interest in property. The term is also defined to include any transaction entered into by any person with intent to diminish directly or indirectly the value of his own property and to increase the value of the property of any other person. In view of the wide meaning of the expression, "transfer of property" in section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, we are of the view that there was a transfer of property by the assessee in favour of the private limited company and the transfer was made voluntarily and without consideration. In view of the wide meaning of the expression, "transfer of property" in section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, we are of the view that there was a transfer of property by the assessee in favour of the private limited company and the transfer was made voluntarily and without consideration. Though the transfer was revocable after a period of 74 months from the date of execution of the letter of transfer, the mere fact that it is revocable does not take away the character of the transaction as a gift, that is, during the period of irrevocability of the transfer. The Gift-tax Act contemplates and includes within its fold a revocable transfer of property also to be chargeable under the Gift-tax Act provided the transfer is made without any consideration. We therefore hold that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee as a donor of the property had transferred her property in favour of the transferee, private limited company without any consideration, and it would constitute a gift under the provisions of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. 10. Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act are not applicable as there is no income from the ornaments during the period for which the gift was not revocable, and consequently, Rule 11 which provides the mode of computation of the value of income from the property, is also not applicable to the facts of the case. Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS v. C.G.T. (251 ITR 883) and submitted that the capitalised value in the case of revocable transfer has to be determined under Rule 11(1) of the Gift-tax Rules and in the present case, the value could not be determined by applying Rule 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court has also held that apart from Rule 11, there are no other provisions to determine the capitalised value of the gift. Learned counsel therefore submitted that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. B.C.SRINIVASA SETTY (128 ITR 294) in case the machinery section fails to determine the value of the gifted property, there is no charge to gift-tax. 11. Learned counsel therefore submitted that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. B.C.SRINIVASA SETTY (128 ITR 294) in case the machinery section fails to determine the value of the gifted property, there is no charge to gift-tax. 11. Mr.T.C.A.Ramanujam, learned senior standing counsel for the department, on the other hand, submitted that it is possible to arrive at the value in the hands of the donee as the donee is a investment company. However, we are not inclined to go into the said question as it was found by the Tribunal that none of the authorities has applied section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act and determined the value of the gift by applying Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules. The Appellate Tribunal therefore remitted the matter to the Gift-tax Officer to find out the value by applying the provisions of Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules. Since the matter has been remitted to the Gift-tax Officer, we are of the view that it is not necessary to express any opinion on the question whether the value of the gifted property could be arrived at by applying the provisions of section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act read with Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules. However, we make it clear that it is open to the assessee to raise all her objections before the Gift-tax Officer including the question whether section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act read with Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules would apply, and in case the machinery section fails, the charge under the Act also fails. 12. Accordingly, we answer the question of law as reframed by us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. It is made clear that it is open to the assessee to raise all objections that are open to her in law before the Gift-tax Officer including the question of levy of gift-tax on the transaction in question. The tax case reference is disposed of accordingly. No costs.