JUDGMENT
Iqbal Singh, J.
1. The Revenue filed an application (R. A. No. 225 ASR of 1979), before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), requiring the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following two questions of law arising from the Tribunal’s order dated August 29, 1979, in E. D. A. Nos. 8 and 11 (ASR) of 1978-79, to this court for its opinion :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Clause (15) of Section 2 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were not attracted to the case of the deceased ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the deemed gift amounting to Rs. 1,78,997 was not includible in the estate of the deceased and as such not liable to duty ?”
2. The brief facts on which these questions were sought to be referred by the Revenue may be stated as under ;
3. The deceased Kehar Singh had purportedly transferred land measuring 132 kanals, 4 1/2 marlas on April 9, 1970, in favour of Bakhshish Singh and Mohinder Singh for a sum of Rs. 40,000. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty estimated the value of the subject-matter of the sale at the rate of Rs. 13,250 per acre. Thus, according to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the total value of the subject-matter of sale was Rs. 2,18,997 as against the sale consideration of Rs. 40,000. The value of the land being much more, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was of the view that in fact there was no sale. Then he took the view that even if it was recorded to be a sale, the deceased would be deemed to have made a gift of the balance, i.e., Rs. 1,78,997 (Rs. 2,18,997–Rs. 40,000). On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty reversed the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in this regard and found that it was a case of sale and no gift was involved. He, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,78,997 made on account of deemed gift.
4. The Tribunal referred the following question to this court for its opinion, vide order dated March 3, 1980 :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Clause (15) of Section 2 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were not attracted to the case of the deceased ?”
5. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. R.P. Sawhney, senior advocate.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is that the present case is a case of deemed gift to the tune of Rs. 1,78,997 in view of the provisions of Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as there was extinguishment of the right of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 1,78,997 and, therefore, this amount is includible in the principal value.
7. It is very clear that the provisions of Section 9 and Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, do not talk of any deemed gift. The provisions of the Gift-tax Act cannot be availed of for the purpose of the Estate Duty Act. That being so, it cannot be said as to under which provision the deemed gift is to be valued. Moreover, Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, also does not talk of a mixed transaction of sale and deemed gift. This provision is attracted only in the cases of transactions in which the rights of the deceased were extinguished. The present case relates to a sale transaction and the deemed gift on account of the difference of the value cannot be bifurcated from the transaction of sale. There is no provision in the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in regard to a deemed gift. This being the position, we find that the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Clause (15) of Section 2 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were not attracted in the present case. The reference is answered accordingly.