Arijit Pasayat ( 1 ) AT the instance of assessee, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 26 (1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi (in short tribunal ): "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a taxable gift involved under Section 2 (xii) and 2 (xxiv) (a) of the Gift Tax Act when the deceased Karta of the family created a trust dated 30. 6. 1964 in favour of the four beneficiaries who were members of the HUF"?the dispute relates to the assessment year 1966-67. ( 2 ) FACTUAL background in a nutshell is as follows: m/s. Chandmal Gauri Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) was a hindu Undivided Family (in short H. U. F. ). Gift-tax Officer issued notice under Section 16 of the Act, as it was noticed by him that assessee had gifted three properties to a trust for the benefit of its members during the assessment year in question. Such transfers were made on 15/07/1965 for the value of rs. 75,000. 00. Assessee did not file any return and accordingly notice under section 15 (4) of the Act was issued on23rd March, 1979. Return urn declaring "nil" gift was filed. It was claimed that benefit under Section 5 (l) (xi) was available to the noticee. Gift-tax Officer did not accept the stand and held that the total amount of Rs. 75,000. 00 was a taxable gift and after allowing exemption under section 5 (ii) of the Act, sum of Rs. 65,000. 00 was brought to tax. Matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short aac ). Said authority was of the view that provisions of Section 5 (1) (xi) have no application to the facts of the case as the gift in question cannot be said to be one made in contemplation of death. He also held that Section 5 (1) (xi) applies only to movable properties and not the immovable properties. That being the position appeal was dismissed. Matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 2 (xxiv) (a) read with Section 2 (xii) of the Act had no application to the facts of the case. That being the position appeal was dismissed. Matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 2 (xxiv) (a) read with Section 2 (xii) of the Act had no application to the facts of the case. Tribunal noticed that the validity of the trust-deed and its legal effects have been examined by it, in respect of the income-tax assessment of the assessee family for the assessment year 1966-67 in ITA No. 4447 of 1971-72 and by judgment dated 20/07/1973, it was inter alia held as follows: "we are, therefore, of the opinion that the question in this case be decided not by considering whether the trust deed was void or voidable but by considering whether the trust deed has been assented to by all the members of the family by their having elected to abide by it. Looking at it from this point of view it is seen that not only the author but also the members as well as the three beneficiaries have returned the income from these properties based on the trust deed which shows their factual assent to the transfer of the property, of the HUF to the trust. It is also seen that the property has been shown as trust property in the estate duty assessment of the two ladies as well as the wealth-tax assessment of Lakshmi Narain while the trust itself has been assessed separately. The only major coparcener other than the author was laksnmi Narain whose assessment shows that he has assented to the transfer of the immovable properties belonging to the HUF. It has not been shown by the Department that the minor coparcener who was aged 12 years at the time of the trust has repudiated the trust on becoming a major. Even otherwise the creation of the trust is to the benefit of the then minor coparcener and he could be assumed to have elected to abide by it as the limitation for repudiating it is over. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the trust deed is not void because the members of the family have assented to it and that, therefore, the assessing Authorities were not justified in ignoring the trust deed and considering the property as that of the HUF". We are, therefore, of the opinion that the trust deed is not void because the members of the family have assented to it and that, therefore, the assessing Authorities were not justified in ignoring the trust deed and considering the property as that of the HUF". In view of the aforesaid observations made by it in income-tax proceedings, tribunal held that the transfaction in question squarely falls within the definition of transfer of property under Section 2 (xxiv) (a) of the Act which includes the creation of a trust in property. It was noted that the assessee s stand was not mat there was any consideration for the creation of the trust and, therefore, it followed that the transfer of existing immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration. That being the position, it was held that the transaction amounted to gift as defined under Section 2 (xii) of the Act, as the trust did not purport to effect partition of the property amongst the beneficiaries. It was held that the provisions of Section 2 (xii) and Section 2 (xxiv) (a) had application to the facts in the case. On being moved for reference, the question as set out above, has been referred for opinion of this court. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the aasessee in spite of notice. Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that, in view of the conclusions arrived at in the income-tax proceedings Tribunal was justified in its conclusion. ( 4 ) THE extracted portion of the Tribunal s order, so far as it relates to the income-tax proceedings, clearly shows that the trust-deed was a valid one and that being the position there was a transfer in term of Section 2 (xii) read with Section 2 (xxiv) (a) of the Act. In the above background, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is accordingly disposed of. Reference answered in affirmative.