Commissioner of Gift-tax (Central) vs Late Smt. Moonghibai Goenka (by L.R.)

Ismail, J.—The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Central), Madras, u/s

26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in determining the value of 4,690 shares in the

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd., at Rs. 5,92,112 as against Rs. 6,48,520 declared by the assessee herself in her return ?

(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal acted within the scope of its appellate powers in granting the relief in excess of the relief prayed for by the

assessee in the appeal ?

The assessee, late Smt. Moonghibai Goenka, owned 4,700 equity shares in the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd., Bombay. By

deeds of settlement dated May 7, 1966, she transferred 4,690 shares to four different trusts created by her for the benefit of her three minor

grand-children. For the assessment year 1967-68, the relevant accounting period ending on March 31, 1967, a return of taxable gifts at the value

of Rs. 6,48,520 was filed by Sri Bhagwandas Goenka, as the legal representative of the late Smt. Moonghibai Goenka. The Gift-tax Officer did

not accept the valuation returned and determined the value of the shares in question at Rs. 8,64,695. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant

Commissioner confirmed the Gift-tax Officer''s valuation and the assessment made by him. The assessee filed a further appeal to the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated August 4, 1969, observed as follows :

We are of the view that the question of the disputed valuation should be referred to the arbitration of two valuers one of whom should be

nominated by the assessee and the other by the Gift-tax Officer. We, accordingly, direct both the parties to nominate their respective valuers within

fifteen days from the receipt of this order.

Such arbitrators were appointed and they by their report dated May 14, 1970, decided the valuation of the 4,690 equity shares gifted in this

case at Rs. 5,92,112. By its order dated July 18, 1970, the Tribunal held:

The valuation report has been received. Conformably to the report of the valuers, we direct that the value of the shares may be taken at Rs.

5,92,112. In the circumstances of this case, the assessee will be entitled to the full costs of the valuation. The appeal is allowed.

It is the correctness of this order of the Tribunal that is challenged in the form of the questions extracted above.

The learned counsel for the revenue contended that the assessee all along having contended that value of the shares in question was Rs.

6,48,520, it is not open to the Tribunal to fix the value at a lesser figure, namely, at Rs. 5,92,112, and even according to the provisions of Section

23(6) of the Gift-tax Act, as it then stood, the order of the Tribunal should be in accordance with the claim of the assessee before it.

In this case, admittedly, the assessee had throughout contended that the value returned by the assessee at Rs. 6,48,520 was the correct value of

4,690 equity shares, and even in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee had prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to take the

valuation of the 4,690 shares to be only at Rs. 6,48,520. It is in view of this only that the learned counsel for the revenue contends that the Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to go beyond the claim made by the assessee in the appeal, and even when Section 23(6) of the Act requires the Tribunal to

pass its order conformably to the decision of the valuers, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the value of the shares at Rs. 5,92,112 since the

assessee had prayed that the same should be fixed at Rs. 6,48,520.

The learned counsel for the assessee apart from contesting the validity of the claim on the part of the department, took a preliminary objection,

namely, that the questions of law referred to this court by the Tribunal did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, this court should

decline to answer the questions referred to it. According to the learned counsel, the point now raised before this court was not raised before the

Tribunal tnd, therefore, the Tribunal did not decide the point raised by the revenue, and, consequently, the question now raised could not be said to

arise out of the order of the Tribunal within the scope of Section 26(1)of the Gift-tax Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed

reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., reaffirmed by the

Supreme Court by a subsequent decision in The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, followed by a Full

Bench of the Kerala High Court with reference to a reference made u/s 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in Commissioner of Gift-tax, Kerala,

Ernakulam Vs. Dr. V. Madhavan Valiathan, . Considering the scope of the expression ""any question of law arising out of such order"" appearing in

Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Scindia Steam Navigation

Co. Ltd., observed as follows:

The result of the above discussion may thus be summed up :

(1) When a question is raised before the Tribunal and is dealt with by it, it is clearly one arising out of its order.

(2) When a question of law is raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal fails to deal with it, it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it, and

is, therefore, one arising out of its order.

(3) When a question is not raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal deals with it, that will also be a question arising out of its order.

(4) When a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, it will not be a question arising out of its order

notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by it.

It is not in dispute that the language of Section 26(1) of the Gift-lax Act, 1958, under which the present reference has been made is similar to to

the language of Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the decision

of the Supreme Court referred to above will clearly apply to the present reference and, as a matter of fact, as we pointed out already, the Kerala

High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above in regard to a reference made u/s 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act. We have

extracted the order of the Tribunal in full. There is no indication in the order that the revenue raised any such question as has been referred to us by

the Tribunal, and, therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider any such question. It is not the case of the revenue that such a question was

raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal omitted to consider the question and give a decision thereon. Under these circumstances, the present

case falls squarely within the fourth category enumerated by the Supreme Court in its decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs.

Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., referred to above and, therefore, the reference itself is incompetent. In view of this, we decline to answer the

questions referred by the Tribunal to this court in the present case. There will be no order as to costs.