1996 (1) TMI 160 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment Year Immovable Property Movable Property Orders Prejudicial To Interests Registered Valuer Stamp Duty

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of proceedings under section 24 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
2. Legality and factual correctness of the order under section 24.
3. Determination of the value of the gifted property as per Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of proceedings under section 24 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958:
The assessee contested the initiation of proceedings under section 24 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, arguing that it was neither justified nor proper. The return of the gift was filed by the donee, who was the legal heir of the donor, Smt. Rani Bai. The property in question was valued at Rs. 1,21,200 based on the valuation by a registered valuer in accordance with Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted this valuation, but the Commissioner of Gift-tax (CGT) later determined that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the stamp authorities had valued the property at Rs. 5,50,000.

2. Legality and factual correctness of the order under section 24:
The CGT set aside the AO's assessment order, directing a fresh assessment, arguing that the AO should have referred the matter to a valuation officer. The assessee's counsel contended that the valuation rules were procedural and applied to all pending assessments, as established by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886. The CGT's failure to justify why it was not practicable to apply rule 3 of Schedule III was also highlighted. The AO had acted under the directions of the CGT and was bound to follow them, making it unjustifiable to deem the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

3. Determination of the value of the gifted property as per Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the rules framed under the Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, which held that rules prescribed under the Wealth-tax Act must be followed. The Tribunal noted that both the Gift-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act initially contained the concept of 'market value', but post-amendment, the Gift-tax Act mandated valuation as per Schedule II, which referred to Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the CGT's argument that it was not practicable to apply rule 3, as the registered valuer had used the method prescribed by rule 3, and no errors in the calculations were identified by the department.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order dated 2-11-1992 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It upheld the assessee's contentions, quashing the CGT's order dated 15-2-1995. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.