IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 GTA.No. 13 of 2008() -------------------- ORDER IN GTA.8/COCH/1999 DT.29.4.2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHRI.C.R.S.PILLAI, T.C.9/269, TEMPLE ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. THIS GIFT TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... G.T. Appeal No.13 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the Gift Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the first appellate authority cancelling the gift tax assessment made on the respondent-assessee under Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act. The assessee sold land and building to a company for Rs.20 lakhs. The Assessing Officer noticed that the book value is more than the sale price and so much so, he brought the difference to tax by applying the Wealth Tax Rules on valuation namely, Rule 14(2)(b) of the Wealth Tax Rules. The first appellate authority noticed that the property was not referred for valuation and therefore, Wealth Tax Rule relied on by the Assessing Officer has no application. We find that market value is adopted from the value declared by the assessee in the application filed under Section 230(A) of the Income Tax Act which was a depreciated value shown in the books of accounts. Since the property was not 2 referred for valuation, first appellate authority rightly held that Rule has no application. It is this order which is confirmed by the Tribunal through a brief order. Sale appears to have been made by the assessee to a company in his control which is nothing but bringing the business under a corporate entity. It is to be noted that the assessee's conduct led to less depreciation benefit for the purchaser which is a company under his control. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms