TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the material on record. 2. Though only one issue is involved in the appeal, as many as twelve grounds are raised in the appeal, most of which are argumentative and narrative in nature. This is contrary to r. 8 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. However, as mentioned earlier, in the interest of justice, we refrain from doing so. 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the determination of taxable gift at Rs. 25,64,256 under s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act, 1958 (the Act). 4. During the year under consideration, assessee had transferred certain assets consisting of plant and machinery and freehold land for a consideration of Rs. 76,35,000 and Rs. 32,00,000, respectively, to M/s W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an overall view, the CGT(A) did not find any infirmity in the valuation made by the DVO. On the other hand, he found infirmity with the valuation made by the assessee's valuer. The action of the AO in applying the provisions of s. 4(1)(a) was upheld by the CGT(A). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee made detailed submissions before us and relied on a number of decisions in support of the submissions. His foremost objection was against invoking the provisions of s. 16 of the Act. It was contended that s. 16 could be invoked only when the AO had reasons to believe that taxable gift had escaped assessment. In the light of the facts of the present case, therefore, the AO should have first come to the conclusion that assets were sold for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the assessee-company whose major shareholder was Government of Gujarat and whose board consisted of Government directors, the transaction approved by such a board could not be doubted, particularly where the only ground was the DVO's report to make such assessment. 9. The contention of the learned Departmental Representative was that as there was the concept of deemed gift, there was no concept of capital gain and hence, the fact that capital gains as computed by the assessee were accepted by the Department, was not relevant. Further, according to the learned Departmental Representative, it was not material even if the transaction was at arm's length for the purposes of s. 4(1)(a) of the Act. It was submitted that DVO's report could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances. 11. Firstly, the total sales consideration shown by the assessee is Rs. 1,08,35,000 as against DVO's valuation of Rs. 1,34,04,256. The difference between the two is certainly not so much, which may raise one's eyebrows. The valuation made by the DVO may not be wholly incorrect. After all, he too is an expert. But then, while striking a deal like the one in the present case, there may have been many factors, which may have influenced the parties to arrive at a particular agreement. This may result into some pluses and minuses. Under such circumstances to term the consideration as inadequate is far from being reasonable. It also cannot be gainsaid (sic) that the assessee should have sold the assets at the price determined by the DVO....