2022 (6) TMI 1120 - HC - Income Tax

Valuation of the property under gift - Assessment u/s 15(2) of the Gift Tax Act determining the taxable gift - method and mode of valuation of property - HELD THAT - 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 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 Supreme Court to raise objections on ownership of the property. The objections as rightly pointed out by Mr. Christopher Abraham, go to the root of the very transaction under which the legal heir of the assessee is contesting the ownership. The assessee or her legal heir is now contesting the ownership of the property. Looking at from general principles of law, the burden is on the assessee or her legal heir to prove that the ownership of the property vests with someone else, not the assessee. The entries in Revenue records, or the name of the assessee in Municipal Corporation, are not conclusive as regards the ownership of the property. The Tribunal, therefore, in our considered view, rightly observed that the assessee failed to place contra evidence on the ownership of the property. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Authorities under the Act. Expecting the Tribunal to restate every conclusion while confirming the findings in all fours, is not the requirement of the adjudication before the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings are tenable and are sustained accordingly. No ground is made out warranting firstly, interference and secondly, for limited purpose, remitting the matter to the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court regarding the ownership of a building.
2. Examination of evidence presented to dispel findings on ownership of the property.
3. Determination of property ownership between the appellant and Malik Dinar Trust.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Supreme Court's Liberty
The case involved a dispute under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 regarding a taxable gift. The appellant challenged the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant sought to question the ownership of the property under gift. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the appellant to raise objections on the ownership issue, leading to a fresh assessment in 2005. However, the Tribunal upheld the ownership of the appellant, resulting in a reduced valuation of the gift.

Issue 2: Examination of Evidence on Ownership
The appellant argued that the valuation report by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) was untenable and illegal, requesting a remand to establish ownership. The respondent contended that the Tribunal's findings were based on legal obligations and facts, with the valuation being reduced after considering objections. The Tribunal found no contra evidence to dispute the ownership of the property by the appellant, emphasizing the burden of proof on the appellant to establish ownership.

Issue 3: Determination of Property Ownership
The Tribunal's findings on valuation and ownership were upheld, emphasizing that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to challenge ownership. The Tribunal's conclusions were considered concurrent findings of fact under the Act, and the burden of proof regarding property ownership rested with the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was deemed tenable, and no grounds for interference or remittance to the Tribunal were found.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's findings on valuation and ownership. The court upheld the burden of proof on the appellant to establish ownership and found no basis for challenging the Tribunal's conclusions.