Gift deed silence controls gift-tax liability; later extrinsic documents cannot alter the instrument, and merger did not bar revision.

Where a gift deed is silent on any liability or charge, later letters and a joint affirmation cannot be used to vary its contents for gift-tax purposes, and the claimed liability was rightly disallowed because the instrument itself is the primary source of the gift. The revisional order was also not barred by merger, as revisional jurisdiction under section 24(2) is distinct from appellate proceedings and the doctrine of merger does not ordinarily apply. Both issues were decided for the Revenue and against the assessee, sustaining the revisional action and the disallowance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Gift-tax was justified in exercising revisional power under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in relation to the assessee's claim that Rs. 1,15,000 represented a liability attached to the gifted property; (ii) whether the revisional order was barred by the doctrine of merger because the assessment order had been the subject of appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Gift-tax was justified in exercising revisional power under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in relation to the assessee's claim that Rs. 1,15,000 represented a liability attached to the gifted property.

Analysis: The gift deed was completely silent about any such liability or charge. For gift-tax purposes, the instrument itself was the primary source for determining what was gifted, and material inconsistent with the deed could not be accepted to alter its contents. The later letters and joint affirmation relied on by the assessee were treated as belated and self-serving, especially in view of the time gap between the gift deed and those documents. The concurrent factual finding that the claimed liability was not proved was therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment and disallowing the claimed liability. This issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order was barred by the doctrine of merger because the assessment order had been the subject of appeal.

Analysis: Section 24(2) conferred revisional jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction, and the doctrine of merger does not ordinarily apply to such revisional proceedings. The assessment order and the revisional order were passed on different dates, and the clause inserted by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect from 1 June 1988, could not affect an order already made on 22 March 1988.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not hit by the doctrine of merger. This issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both reference questions were decided against the assessee, and the revisional action as well as the disallowance of the claimed liability were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the gift deed is silent, later extrinsic material cannot be used to contradict or vary the contents of the instrument for gift-tax purposes, and a revisional order passed under a statutory revisional power is not merged in the assessment order merely because the assessment was appealed.

---