9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (5) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en acquired by purchase by the assessee in the year 1961 and it had been leased out subsequently. For the purpose of stamp duty for registration of the document of sale the stamp duty authorities valued the property at Rs. 98,683 and the stamp duty was paid on that basis for the purpose of effecting the registration of the sale. In the course of the original proceedings before the GTO, the GTO determined the amount of gift-tax payable neither with reference to the consideration of Rs. 49,000 nor with reference to the amount on which the stamp duty has been paid of Rs. 98,683 but he determined the value at Rs. 65,000, on the basis of an enquiry conducted by him. Subsequently, the CGT, Tamilnadu V issued a show cause notice to the assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termined is illegal and without jurisdiction. In substance the ground taken by the assessee and advance before us in the course of hearing of the appeal is that the CGT (A) did not have proper jurisdiction to upset the order of the GTO for want of proper basis or materials. The ld. Deptl. Rep. on the other hand supported the order of the CGT setting aside the assessment and directing the GTO to make a fresh determination of the value of the property. It was the submission of the ld. Deptl. Rep. that the order of the GTO was erroneous because he did not take into consideration the material available before him namely the value fixed at Rs. 98,683 by the Revenue Department and upon which the stamp duty has been paid. Strong reliance was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mp duty was paid for the purpose of conveyance on the value of Rs. 98,683. The GTO has estimated the value at Rs. 65,000 for the purpose of assessment of gift-tax determined by him and the amount the difference of Rs. 16,000 between the value adopted by him and consideration of Rs. 49,000 stated in the document. The CGT (A) mainly relied in support of his order, firstly on the value as determined by the Revenue Department according to the Guide Line register and on which stamp duty has been paid at Rs. 98,683 and secondly on the fact that the GTO himself has not accepted the consideration stated in the document at Rs. 49,000 but has adopted the value of Rs. 65,000. One of the arguments advance on behalf of the Department in the course of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the CGT himself it has not been shown as to why the explanation is not acceptable. Secondly it is not that the sum of Rs. 98,683 was not shown to the GTO or that it has escaped the attention. The document was very much before him at the time of the original assessment and the GTO was fully aware of the difference between the actual consideration of Rs. 49,000 and the value on which the stamp duty has been paid at Rs. 98,683. He had taken upon himself the task of visiting the place personally for inspection and has found that there is no possibility of market value being very high. It is pertinent to reproduce the extract from the order sheet wherein his report is recorded as per copy furnished by the ld. Deptl. Rep: "The assessee's Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is situated has fixed the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 2,100 for the purpose of Panchayat taxes. There is also the assessee's claim that Nilakottai is a small town with a population of less than 10,000 and therefore running of the theatre was not a commercially successful proposition. The ld. Deptl. Rep. urged that the claim cannot be correct because Nilakottai is a Municipality and therefore the population is substantially more than 10,000. One of the features referred to by the assessee for alleging the suspicion of the CGT is that the vendor and vendee were not related to each other and so there was no likelihood of any collusion between them with regard to suppressing the real fair market value of the property. Even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial to the interests of the Revenue. In this case we do not find any material the basis on which the Commr. could have come to even a prima facie belief that the order of the GTO is erroneous in law. Moreover even if it could be assumed that the value on which the stamp duty has been paid by the assessee could be held to prima facie material according to us the explanation given by him and the reasons adduced therein established that the assessee did furnish all relevant material at the time of assessment. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the CGT (A) has not acted on proper basis and wrongly set aside the order of the GTO. We therefore hold that his order is without jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the order of the CGT is cancelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
