Guideline value mismatch alone does not create a deemed gift where the Tribunal's finding is factual and follows binding precedent.

Difference between the declared value of a gift and the Sub-Registrar's guideline value did not, on these facts, create a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act. The Tribunal had followed an earlier binding High Court ruling and recorded a factual finding that the consideration was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, even though it differed from the registration guideline value. As the conclusion turned on those factual findings and settled precedent, no substantive question of law arose for reference, and the Revenue's petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the difference between the returned value of the gift and the Sub-Registrar's guideline value constituted a deemed gift assessable under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, and whether any referable question of law arose.

Analysis: The Tribunal had relied on an earlier decision of the same court and had also recorded a factual finding that the consideration received was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, though it did not match the guideline value adopted for registration purposes. In view of the binding earlier ruling and the factual nature of the Tribunal's conclusion, the matter did not disclose any substantive question of law for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose and the Revenue's petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion rests on facts and follows an earlier binding decision, the matter does not give rise to a question of law merely because the consideration differs from the registration guideline value.

---