TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced before the Authorities under the Act, atleast to canvass the ground in this Court that the finding of fact is recorded without considering the material on the record. The i pse dixit contention does not carry the assessee anywhere. Each one of the orders we have independently considered in this behalf and we are in agreement with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the valuation. Hence, the argument advanced by the assessee on the valuation, now determined by the Authorities under the Act, does not warrant interference and is without merit and rejected. Ownership to the property - We notice the legal heir of the assessee particularly, the donee under the gift deed dated 20.04.1995, was granted liberty by the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kollam JUDGMENT S.V.BHATTI, J. Azad Rahim, son of late Fathima Rahim/assessee is the appellant. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Kollam/Revenue is the respondent. The appeal is filed by the legal heir of the assessee being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in GTA No.01/Coch/2018. 2. The issue arises under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 in the return dated 25.07.1997 filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 15(2) of the Gift Tax Act determining the taxable gift of Rs.74,80,750/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, CIT(A)) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,66,000/- to Rs.37,04,000/-. 4. On 04.03.2011, assessment for the assessment year 1996-97 was completed. The assessee filed the appeal questioning the assessment order dated 04.03.2011, and the appeal was dismissed. The valuation prepared by the DVO was accepted and confirmed the value of the gift of Rs.37,04,000/-. This lead to the filing of G.T.A No.01/Coch/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal through the order impugned in the appeal dismissed GTA No.01/Coch/2018. Hence the appeal with the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Hon'ble Supreme court had only granted the appellant the liberty to question the issue regarding the ownership of the Building? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. The assessee was given liberty to file objections and direction was issued to the DVO to consider the objections as well. The assessee moved the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal and however, granted permission to raise objection on the ownership of the property under gift. 6.1. He argues that the Supreme Court has merely granted permission to raise objections. Therefore, the permission now granted by the Supreme Court does not in any manner come to the aid or assistance of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal, in the first round of the litigation, have noted the legal obligation to examine both the issues viz. valuation and ownership of the property and have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer and thereafter, the value is reduced. The method and mode of valuation suggested by the assessee and/or documents relied on by the assessee are independently considered and rejected. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal have accepted the revised valuation given in the assessment order dated 04.03.2011. Except raising a bald allegation that the property has been excessively valued than what was prevailing at the time of execution of gift deed, hardly any material much less substantial material is placed before the Authorities under the Act, atleast to canvass the ground in this Court that the finding of fact is recorded without considering the material on the record. The i pse dixit contention does not carry the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
