1991 (2) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79, the accounting year ending on March 31, 1978. The respondent-assessee owned a rubber estate measuring 30.71 acres in Kanjirappally. He mortgaged the said estate to his son in 1968 for six years for a sum of Rs. 25,000. By a document dated March 30, 1978, the ownership of the estate was transferred to his son for a consideration of Rs. 35,000. The Gift-tax Officer held that there is an element of gift involved in the said transfer. He valued the rubber estate at Rs. 6,000 per acre and determined the value of the estate at Rs. 1,84,260. Gift-tax was levied thereon in the sum of Rs. 20,352. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated April 21, 1983, affirmed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... value fixed for the gift is a finding of fact. Normally, this court would not interfere with such a finding of fact. But, even the finding of fact can be assailed if it is unsupported by any material or is arbitrary or based on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal had a duty to demonstrate that the decision appealed against before it was wrong before interfering with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In paragraph six of the order dated November 6, 1985, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there is an element of gift in the transfer effected by the assessee to his son. But, it was observed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order is based on presumptions and surmises in fixin....