Revisional jurisdiction under Gift-tax law fails where assessment was made on examined materials and stamp value alone is insufficient.

The Commissioner could not invoke section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act to revise the assessment because the Gift-tax Officer had examined the sale deed, stamp valuation and surrounding circumstances, and had consciously estimated value after local inspection. The revisional action was based mainly on a suspicion that market value was higher, but the materials did not show that the original assessment was erroneous in law or that the assessee had suppressed facts. A higher stamp valuation by itself did not conclusively establish market value or justify revision, so the revisional order was invalid and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 to revise and set aside the Gift-tax Officer's assessment on the footing that the assessment was erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Analysis: The record showed that the Gift-tax Officer had before him the sale deed, the stamp valuation, and the relevant surrounding circumstances, and had consciously estimated the value after local inspection and consideration of the materials. The Commissioner's interference rested substantially on a suspicion that the market value was higher, but the materials relied upon did not establish even a prima facie case that the original assessment was erroneous in law. The assessee had not suppressed the relevant facts, and the higher stamp valuation by itself did not conclusively prove market value or justify revision.

Conclusion: The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment under section 24(2); the revisional order was invalid and was set aside.

---