9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act, 1958 according to which where property was transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration, the amount by which the market value of the property exceeded the value of the consideration shall be deemed to be a gift by the transferor. Estimating the gift at Rs. 81,750 and after allowing basic exemption of Rs. 5,000, he computed the taxable gift at Rs. 76,750. 2. The assessee went in appeal to the AAC of Gift-tax, Udaipur Range, Udaipur who thoroughly agreed with the assessee's contention that the GTO had not brought any material on the record of the GT assessment proceedings to substantiate the fair market value adopted by him at Rs. 1,90,000. The GTO had passed the GT assessment order on the basis of cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at by his order dt. 28th Feb., 1978, the AAC had set aside the IT assessment made by the ITO regarding the year under consideration on the ground that the assessee had not been afforded opportunity for rebuttal of the evidence available with the ITO. The present assessment had been completed by the GTO on 30th March, 1979, i.e. more than 1 year after the date of the order of the AAC in the IT Appellate but still the GTO did not seem to have confronted the assessee with the relevant material about the valuation of the property. 3. After noting all these arguments, the AAC further observed that the property in question was big property and the consideration was more than Rs. 1,00,000. Therefore, the ITO/GTO should have got the property val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst that order of the ITO the assessee had gone in appeal, and all the points now agitated by the assessee before the AAC were in dispute in that appeal. The said appeal No. 8/Jdh/76-77 was disposed of by the AAC, A-Range, Jodhpur who by his order dt. 28th Feb., 1978 agreed that exactly similar argument was advanced on behalf of the assessee was that the material had been collected by the ITO at the back of the assessee without affording reasonable opportunity to him to explain his view point or to prove his case. He had, therefore, set aside the point or to prove his case. He had, therefore, set aside the order of the ITO for being reframed after giving proper opportunity to the assessee on the various objections raised by him. This order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r enhancing the amount of GT determined or penalty imposed. The specific power of setting aside the assessment and referring the case back to the GTO has not been mentioned in this sub-section. It is correct that this does not necessarily mean that the AAC could not pass an order of remand in appropriate cases but a comparison of the language of the two Acts would show that remand was not ordinarily contemplated by the framers of the WT Act and GT Act. In the present case, the AAC has not only sent the matter back to the GTO. He has further directed him to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell, a procedure which was not resorted to by the GTO in the first instance. Keeping in view the all over facts and circumstances of the case, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
