TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (1) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 . F.40GreenPark,New DelhiLandand ground floor. 2.3.1970 47,000 In favour of Chiranjiv Lal Sarpal my son Dy. Chief Engg., NER This return was accepted by the GTO under s. 15(1) of the GT Act, and the assessment was completed on31st Aug., 1971. In the wealth tax return the assessee had declared the value of the whole property at Rs. 72,000 as on31st March, 1969which was the valuation date relevant to the asst. yr. 1969-70. The WTO while completing the assessment of the aforesaid year on5th Jan., 1972determined the value of the property at Rs. 1,56,000. In appeal, which was decided by the AAC in July 1972, the value of the property was reduced to Rs. 1,38,660. On the basis of the value as finally determined in the Wealth Tax Appeal, the proportionate value of the part of the house which was gifted by the assessee on2nd March, 1970came to Rs. 90,500. The GTO re-opened in January, 1973 the assessment under s. 16(1) and revised the value of the gift from Rs. 47,000 to Rs. 90,500 and assessed it accordingly. In appeal before the AAC against the same, it was contended by he assessee that while completing the assessment under s. 1591) of the GT Act, the GTO had alread....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f about 2,800 sq.ft. under. Ground floor covered area about 1.300 sq.ft. 1st floot " 1,300 sq.ft. Barsati " 200 sq.ft. The cost of super structure transferred by way of gift came to about Rs. 31,290: After deducting depreciation at 2-1/2 per cent for three years, the balance value of structure came to Rs. 28,790. The cost of the plot amounting to Rs. 22,000 had to be allocated to each one of the three sets in the house in order to find out either the cost of each set or its fair market value. According to the learned counsel for the assessee the proportionate cost for the unit on the ground floor would be of Rs. 7,333. Thus the proportionate cost of the plot and the cost of the construction of the unit on the ground floor worked out to Rs. 36,123. Against this the fair market value of the ground floor unit was declared in March, 1970 in the gift tax return at Rs. 47,000. This, the assessee added, was the same as was shown before the State authorities for the purposes of stamp duty etc. and which value was duly accepted by them. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the fair market value declared at Rs. 47,000 being reasonable, and it having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determined the amount of gift tax payable by him or the amount refundable to him on the basis of such return. The original assessment was made by the GTO under s. 15(1) of the GT Act. The GTO has not indicated in the order as to on the basis of what facts and evidence he had satisfied himself that he should accept the return without requiring the present of the assessee or the production by him of any evidence is support of the return. The return fully indicated as to which property formed a part of the gifted asset and complete details regarding the said property were also stated in the return. The cost of construction in of the said property had already been enquired into by the ITO in the earlier years and the wealth tax returns had also been field one day earlier. All these things were available with the GTO when he completed the assessment under s. 15(1) of the GT Act. The State Sub-Registrar who was also concerned with determining the market value of the gifted property had also accepted the market value as declared by the assessee. The fact that subsequently, in the wealth tax proceedings, a different value was put on the entire property would not amount to information as it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y made. In Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, 'C' Ward Dist. IV, Calcutta 88 ITR 150 the Calcutta High Court observed that knowledge sought to be derived from a new look at the old facts of the assessment would be mere change of opinion and not acting on "information" in terms of the section. InCITBombayCity-I vs. Bhagwan Das K. Bros. 99 ITR 171 the Bombay High Court observed that the ITO could not taken any action under s. 34(1)(b) of the Act, 1922 merely because he happens to change his opinion or to hold an opinion different from that of his predecessor on the same set of facts. In the instant case we fell that all the relevant facts and the inferences to be drawn therefore were before and known to the GTO when he passed the original assessment order. What he needed was the nature of the asset gifted and the value thereof. Cost of construction of the property had already been enquired into in the earlier year. It was for the GTO to satisfy him as to the market value of the gifted asset. This could be done by the GTO either by requiring the assessee to produce evidence or by relying on any other evidence as may be available. The GTO made the assessment without requiring the assess....