KARAN KUMAR MINOR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF GIFT-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An assessee, a minor, has filed this petition under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for issuance of a mandamus directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, to refer the following six questions of law to this court, along with the statement of the case, for its opinion :

(2.) Kakkar Complex Steels, a private limited company, is controlled by three brothers, namely, Sarvshri Dipan Kumar, Vipan Kumar and Ravinder Kumar. Karan Kumar (minor) son of Shri Vipan Kumar, the assessee, held 125 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 1,000 per share in the company. The assessee transferred/sold his entire holding of 125 shares to his real uncle, Dipan Kumar, on June 1, 1984, at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per share. Dipan Kumar was the main shareholder and was controlling the affairs of the company. Against the assessee's working of the value of the gift on the basis of the sale price mentioned above, the Gift-tax Officer computed the value of the gift by applying the break-up valuation method on the total assets of the company which, according to him, gave the value per share at the rate of Rs. 5,898. He, accordingly, held that the total value of the shares transferred should have been Rs. 7,37,250 as against the consideration of Rs. 3,75,000 declared and, therefore, the difference between the two amounting to Rs. 3,62,250 was taken as deemed gift and assessed. An appeal carried by the assessee was dismissed by the Gift-tax Commissioner. Further appeal to the Tribunal met with the same fate. The questions of law claimed by the assessee were declined on the ground that no referable question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that questions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 reproduced above, do arise from the order of the Tribunal, which require consideration by this court. However, question No. 3 does not arise from the order of the Tribunal as the same was not taken as a ground before the Tribunal. There is no discussion on this point in the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, it cannot be said that this question arises from the order of the Tribunal. The same is, therefore, declined.