AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Kochu Thommen, J.—The following two questions have been, at the instance of the revenue, referred to us by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the Land Board not having questioned the validity of the gift to the assessee, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in coming to a different conclusion based on suppositions and surmises and in deleting the value of 2.3 acres from the net wealth of the assessee in the two assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and in fact in finding that ''she has no legal right over this property. So, under those circumstances it is not a property at all and, therefore, it is not an asset'' and are not the above findings wrong, unreasonable based on suppositions and surmises, irrelevant, unwarranted and without jurisdiction?
The Tribunal by its order dated 29-12-1977 (Annexure C) found the following facts:
...The ceiling return of the Maharaja had been finalised on 22nd February, 1972 that in such finalisation the Land Board had somehow or other only treated this invalid gift as a valid gift and excluded it from the computation of the extent of the land owned or held by the Maharaja and that till now no re-opening proceedings have been taken by the Land Board and that the assessee is in possession and enjoyment of the property even today.
On the basis of these facts, the Tribunal surprisingly concluded that the asset in question was not the asset in the hands of the assessee and it had no value whatsoever.
The assessee is the niece of the donor of the gift. The gift was considered by the Land Board in its proceedings relating to the properties liable to be surrendered by the donor. The Board, as found by the Tribunal, accepted the validity of the gift and held that it was not the property of the donor as it was validly transferred by him. The order of the Land Board has become final. It is stated at the Bar that the finality of the order is no longer open to challenge by reason of the lapse of time. In the circumstances, the Tribunal, on the facts found, came to totally unsustainable conclusions. Accordingly, we answer the two questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases.