TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GTA No.01/Coch/2018. 2. The issue arises under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 in the return dated 25.07.1997 filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 15(2) of the Gift Tax Act determining the taxable gift of Rs.74,80,750/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, CIT(A)) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') confirmed that there was a taxable gift involved in the transaction. The assessee filed GTA Nos.2, 3, 4 of 2002 before this Court, and vide judgment dated 21.01.2004 this Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal however, granted liberty to the assessee to file objections before the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on the valuation arrived at by hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Tribunal. The Tribunal through the order impugned in the appeal dismissed GTA No.01/Coch/2018. Hence the appeal with the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Hon'ble Supreme court had only granted the appellant the liberty to question the issue regarding the ownership of the Building? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law on facts in holding that there wasn't any contra evidence brought on record to dispel the findings of the CIT(A)'s with regard to the ownership of the building? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law on facts in holding that the building was owned by the appellant and not Malik Dinar Trust?....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted permission to raise objections. Therefore, the permission now granted by the Supreme Court does not in any manner come to the aid or assistance of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal, in the first round of the litigation, have noted the legal obligation to examine both the issues viz. valuation and ownership of the property and have accordingly, rendered findings. The valuation is scaled-down from Rs.58,66,000/- to Rs.37,04,000/-. Thus the objections are considered and now the findings recorded by the Tribunal based on the record are pure and simple findings of the fact, therefore does not come within the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Replying to the argumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcessively valued than what was prevailing at the time of execution of gift deed, hardly any material much less substantial material is placed before the Authorities under the Act, atleast to canvass the ground in this Court that the finding of fact is recorded without considering the material on the record. The ipse dixit contention does not carry the assessee anywhere. Each one of the orders we have independently considered in this behalf and we are in agreement with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the valuation. Hence, the argument advanced by the assessee on the valuation, now determined by the Authorities under the Act, does not warrant interference and is without merit and rejected. 9. Adverting to the argument on ow....