High Court Of Delhi
Commissioner Of Gift Tax vs. Dr. (Kaviraj) Khajan Chand
Sections GT 6, GT 26
B.N. Kirpal & Chaudhry, JJ.
GTC No. 2 of 1989
11th January, 1990
R. C. Pandey, for the Petitioner : K. P. Bhatnagar, for the Respondent.
B.N.KIRPAL, J. :
The question involved in this case pertains to the valuation of a plot of land which was gifted by the respondent to his grandson. The GTO did not accept the contention of the assessee, namely, that the value should be Rs. 15,136, which was the consideration which the assessee had paid for it on January 30, 1976. The contention of the assessee was that, according to the terms of the lease deed, for a period of 10 years this property could not be transferred. The GTO did not accept this contention and valued the said land at Rs. 3,37,792. An appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed by the AAC. The Tribunal, however, while following the decision of this Court in CWT vs. Smt. Promila Bali (1983) 34 CTR (Del) 374:(1983) 141 ITR 942 (Del), came to the conclusion that the value of the gift was to be the price paid for the land.
2. It is contended by Shri Pandey that this conclusion of the Tribunal is uncalled for because, according to s. 4 of the GT Act, the market value of the property had to be determined. In our opinion, the question as to what has to be the value of the gift is a pure question of fact. The assessee had contended that the value should be Rs. 15,140, whereas the GTO had concluded that the value of the gift should be Rs. 3,37,792. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there was a restriction placed on the transfer of the land and, in fact, for the first ten years, there was a complete prohibition of transfer by sale and it was because of that reason that the Tribunal had adopted the value of Rs. 15,136 instead of Rs. 3,37,792 adopted by the GTO. In our opinion, this conclusion of the Tribunal is a conclusion of fact and no question of law arises.
Dismissed. No costs.
[Citation :182 ITR 469]