TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Rs. 3,25,000. Each of the assessee had 1/9th share only. On the basis of the information that stamp duty and registration charges were paid at Rs. 8,65,740, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under s. 16 of the GT Act to all the assessees, in response to which they filed nil return. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the property was sold at the fair market value to the outsiders. None of the purchasers was related to the assessees. The property was tenants occupied one. The tenants were very old and covered by rent control order. It was also submitted that the consideration received has been accepted by the Department in Estate Duty proceedings and the sale consideration has been truly stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the property and has not proved that the property was transferred for inadequate consideration. There was no relationship between the sellers and purchasers and, therefore, the question of deemed gift did not arise at all. The submissions of the assessee found favour with the Dy. CGT(A), who held that the deemed gift of Rs. 60,000 assessed by the AO in case of each of the assessees is not justified and allowed the appeals. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO. He submitted that it is an admitted position that the Registration authorities had fixed the market value of the property for the purpose of levy of stamp duty and regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered valuer for no reasons. The learned counsel also pointed out that acquisition proceedings initiated by the Department have also been dropped and a copy of the competent authority's order dt. 31st Aug., 1983 under s. 269F(7) of the IT Act appears at page 41 of the paper book. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: CGT vs. Indo Traders Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd. (1981) 181 ITR 312 (Mad); K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC); Kodisetty Suryanarayana vs. GTO (1993) 47 TTJ (Hyd) 134 : (1993) 46 ITD 247 (Hyd). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the authorities below as also the decisions cited on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in about the adequacy or inadequacy of consideration or whether or not the market value of the property in question was fair or reasonable. It is now well settled that burden lies on the Revenue to prove the inadequacy of the consideration and if the burden is not discharged, the provision of s. 4(1)(a) cannot be invoked to tax the deemed gift in the hands of the assessee. In the given situation, it cannot be said that the assessees have transferred the property in question without adequate consideration. It is not in dispute that the assessees and the transferee are not related to each other. There is no material on record to enable us to hold that the transfer was not bona fide and that it was with a view to evade tax. An identical questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
