9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee filed a return of gift on 27th Nov., 1970 showing a taxable gift of Rs. 47,000 and giving the details of the gift made, in Annexure 'A' of part II of the return, as follows :-- "Details of gifts of immovable property situated in the territories to which the act extends :-- S. No. Full description of Property Date of Gift Value of Gift Name & full address of the donee 1 2 3 4 5 . F.40GreenPark,New DelhiLandand ground floor. 2.3.1970 47,000 In favour of Chiranjiv Lal Sarpal my son Dy. Chief Engg., NER This return was accepted by the GTO under s. 15(1) of the GT Act, and the assessment was completed on31st Aug., 1971. In the wealth tax return the assessee had declared the value of the whole property at Rs. 72,000 as on3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly 1972. He added that the GTO had issued the notice under s. 16 of the GT Act in January, 1973 only when the question of valuation of the property was finalised in appeal. According to the AAC, the matter was fully covered by the provisions of s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act. Aggrieved from the said order of the AAC, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that while completing the assessment on31st Aug., 1971under s. 51(1) of the GT Act, the GTO had scrutinised the return and had satisfied himself that the value as shown of the property gifted by the assessee was correct and complete, and that it was the fair market value therefore. According to the learned counsel for the assessee once t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the assessee the proportionate cost for the unit on the ground floor would be of Rs. 7,333. Thus the proportionate cost of the plot and the cost of the construction of the unit on the ground floor worked out to Rs. 36,123. Against this the fair market value of the ground floor unit was declared in March, 1970 in the gift tax return at Rs. 47,000. This, the assessee added, was the same as was shown before the State authorities for the purposes of stamp duty etc. and which value was duly accepted by them. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the fair market value declared at Rs. 47,000 being reasonable, and it having been accepted by the State Sub-Registrar also, it ought to be accepted by the GTO. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t value stated by the assessee, in the gift tax return was not correct. According to him the assessment had been correctly made under s. 169(1) of the GT Act. The learned Department Representative relied on 64 ITR 218. 4. We have heard the parties and considered the matter. In our opinion, all the relevant facts were before the GTO when he made the original assessment and no new facts came to his possession. The wealth-tax returns were already before him when he completed the assessment under s. 15(1). Sec. 15(1) of the GT Act provides that if the GTO is satisfied without requiring the presence of the assessee or requiring the production by him of any evidence that return made under s. 13 or s. 14 is correct and complete, he is to assess t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by him earlier under s. 15(1) of the GT Act. As stated earlier the only information with the GTO was the wealth tax assessment made by him. In 82 ITR 204, the matter pertained to the action taken under s. 148 r/w s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961. Sec. 147(b) of the IT Act roughly corresponds to s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court held in that case Panama Private Ltd. vs. ITO 'C' Ward, Companies Disst. II, Calcutta and others (1) that the information contemplated under s. 147(b) may be either on facts or on law but that does not mean that each and every mistake of law in the assessment of the assessee's income subsequently discovered can be treated as information by the ITO concerned for the purpose of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tta High Court observed that knowledge sought to be derived from a new look at the old facts of the assessment would be mere change of opinion and not acting on "information" in terms of the section. InCITBombayCity-I vs. Bhagwan Das K. Bros. 99 ITR 171 the Bombay High Court observed that the ITO could not taken any action under s. 34(1)(b) of the Act, 1922 merely because he happens to change his opinion or to hold an opinion different from that of his predecessor on the same set of facts. In the instant case we fell that all the relevant facts and the inferences to be drawn therefore were before and known to the GTO when he passed the original assessment order. What he needed was the nature of the asset gifted and the value thereof. Cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
