Land reforms proceedings did not void a gift; registration and stamp valuation prevailed over unsupported valuer opinion.

Property subjected to land reforms proceedings was not treated as lacking transferable interest for gift-tax purposes merely because those proceedings were pending or incomplete, since the statutory bar under section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961, operated only for ceiling computation and did not render the transfer void ab initio. On valuation, the assessment based on registration and stamp valuation was preferred as concrete evidence, while the approved valuer's report was treated as unsupported opinion evidence. The original valuation was therefore upheld, and the assessment findings remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the gift was void or ineffective on the ground that the gifted land, being subject to proceedings under the land reforms law, did not carry a transferable interest; (ii) Whether the valuation adopted in the original return, based on the registration and stamp valuation, was to be rejected in favour of the approved valuer's report.

Issue (i): Whether the gift was void or ineffective on the ground that the gifted land, being subject to proceedings under the land reforms law, did not carry a transferable interest.

Analysis: The land had already been treated in the land reforms proceedings as part of the father's ceiling holding. The statutory bar in section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961, operated for the purposes of ceiling computation and required transfers to be ignored in that context. Pending or incomplete proceedings under the land reforms law did not postpone the gift-tax assessment or destroy the assessee's transferable interest in the property.

Conclusion: The gift was not void ab initio on the ground urged, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation adopted in the original return, based on the registration and stamp valuation, was to be rejected in favour of the approved valuer's report.

Analysis: The valuation fixed for registration and stamp purposes was treated as concrete evidence, whereas the approved valuer's estimate was only opinion evidence and was found to lack supporting material. The finding on value was treated as one of fact and no basis was found to disturb the original valuation.

Conclusion: The original valuation was upheld and the assessee's valuation challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the connected petition was dismissed, with the assessment and valuation findings left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer is not rendered void for gift-tax purposes merely because the property is under land reforms proceedings when the land is already treated as part of the ceiling holding, and a valuation based on official registration and stamp evidence may be preferred over unsupported opinion evidence from an approved valuer.

---