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 TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 GTA.No. 9 of 2009() ------------------- GTA.10/COCH/2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR.P.M.RAZAK,S.R HOSPITAL, POST IRIKKUR,KANNUR. THIS GIFT TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... G.T. Appeal No.9 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals) cancelling the gift tax assessment made under Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act. We have heard Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. It is seen that the differential price is estimated by applying the Wealth Tax Rules i.e. by capitalising the rent for the sold property. The department has no case that the sale is to a related person. Further, no attempt was made to assess capital gains and so much so, department has no case that the actual sale price is higher than the declared value. We do not find any ground to disagree with the view taken by the Tribunal that Wealth Tax Act has no application for the purpose of gift tax assessment for the year in question. Further, the 2 Tribunal has followed the decision of this court in another case for deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Consequently we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms