TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h August, 1991 directed the Assessing Officer to take the sale consideration for the portion sold by the assessee in the year under consideration to Smt. Madhu Gupta and Smt. Lata Gupta at Rs. 1 lakh only and not Rs. 2,50,000 taken by the Assessing Officer. 2.3 Thereafter the GTO vide assessment order under section 15(3)/16 dated17th March, 1993held that the transaction in question involve a deemed gift of Rs. 1,50,000. While arriving at this conclusion, the GTO, inter alia, observed that the assessee had mentioned the sale consideration in respect of the said shop at Rs. 2,50,000 in the application submitted for grant of income-tax clearance certificate in prescribed Form No. 34A. He also observed that the stamp duty authority had also determined the value of this property at Rs. 2,50,000 for stamp duty purposes. The GTO accordingly levied gift-tax on Rs. 1,50,000 being the difference between the market value of the said shop property taken at Rs. 2,50,000 and the sale consideration of Rs. 1 lakh declared by the assessee. 2.4 The DC(A) after considering the entire relevant material vide her order dated 11-2-1994 held that no deemed gift liable to tax has taken place as a resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an addition in the names of the buyers. The property was originally proposed to be sold to Smt. Madhu Gupta and Smt. Lata Gupta. Later on, in column No. 14, the name of other buyers, namely, Shri Harikishan Gupta (HUF), Shri H.K. Gupta and Shri Ankur Gupta have also been added. However, ultimately the transaction of sale took place only for one shop which was sold to Smt. Madhu Gupta and Smt. Lata Gupta. The said shop sold was under the joint tenancy of Shri Harikishan Gupta and Shri Abhay Gupta, who were carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Hindustan Traders and were occupying the said shop for last about 25 years. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) had held that the actual consideration mentioned at Rs. 1 lakh is true and correct. Likewise the DC(A) while deciding the gift-tax appeal has also held that the fair market value of the shop cannot be treated to be higher than the amount of sale consideration declared in the registered deed. The learned counsel thus strongly supported the orders of the learned first appellate authorities in both these appeals. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned representatives of the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income-tax appeal is, therefore, also fortified by the fact that the Assessing Officer has himself accepted the truthfulness of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed by holding that the difference between the fair market value and the actual sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed constitute a deemed gift within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act. 5.2 For the purposes of invoking the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, the onus lies on the GTO to establish that the property was transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration. The corrections and over-writings in Form No. 34A without any further investigation cannot support such a conclusion arrived at by the GTO. The other factor taken into consideration by the GTO also cannot support the view taken by the GTO because the market value of a shop situated in a particular location with vacant possession may be much higher as compared to a shop which is occupied by an old tenant at a nominal rent. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to show that the Sub-Registrar have prepared the schedule of market rate of properties in different localities after ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted that an admission is best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon. An admission may not be conclusive but unless successfully withdrawn or proved to be erroneous by adducing necessary evidence for that purpose, can be effectively used to the detriment of the makers and would clinch the issue. The burden of proof that admission is wrong is on the maker and unless contrary is proved, it is presumed to be correct and a reliable evidence. But an admission in order to be useful must be clear and unambiguous. Before attaching weight and considering its evidentiary value, the admission in the first place must be clear and certain. The most important thing is to see what was admitted, the circumstances under which such admission was made. Evidentiary value of an admission and its credibility is enhanced depending upon surrounding facts and circumstances. In the present case, the admission relating to considerations stated in Form No. 34A is far from clear. There are so many cuttings and overwritings over the figure of stated consideration that it is difficult to hold with any certainty that consideration is Rs. 2,50,000 or Rs. 1 lac. The question who wrote original figure a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, A.P. [1994] 4 SCC 595 : (1994 AIR SCW 2852), had considered whether market value of the acquired land would be determining on the basis of basic valuation register maintained by the Collector for the purpose of levy of stamp duty under the Stamp Act and the method of valuation on that basis is valid in law. This question was considered in extenso in the context of the power of the State under section 47A of the Stamp Act to fix the basic valuation for stamp duty. After elaborate survey of the amendment made by the State Legislature by local amendment to the Stamps Act under section 47A, this Court had held that the market value shall be determined only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant and in rebuttal thereof by the State, as to the prevailing market value of that particular land. The basic valuation is only for the purpose of collecting the stamp duty and that therefore, it cannot form foundation to determine the market value. 6. The finding of the Court that the concession that the market value determined by the Collector on the basis of basic valuation would be properly applied, is obviously illegal, Shri Gopal Subramaniam contended that the Govt. of U.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
