Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) The assessee is an individual. By three deeds of gifts dated 18th April, 1960, the assessee Biswariath Paul, gifted to his three sons Sankar Nath Paul, Ambar Nath Paul and Dipendra Nath Paul, certain movable and immovable properties as described in the schedules attached to the said respective deeds of gifts. The said deeds of gifts have been made annexures to the statement of case in this case. Each deed of gift contained the following recitals: "Whereas the grantor has decided to grant and to make a gift to the donee of the properties described in Schedule A hereunder absolutely in severalty for ever subject to /payment by the donee of a sum of rupees twenty thousand only to the said grantor such payment to be made within two years from the date of the execution of these presents and also of the property described in Schedule B hereunder absolutely and also of an undivided equal fourth part of share of the property mentioned in Schedule C absolutely AND WHEREAS the donee has agreed to accept the said gift and to pay the said sum of rupees twenty thousand recited above."
(2.) For the purpose of assessment to gift-tax, the properties gifted were valued at Rs. 4,54,700. This reference arises out of assessment for the assessment year 1960-61; for which the previous year started on 10th May, 1959, and ended on 27th April, 1960. The assessee contended before the Gift-tax Officer that an amount of Rs. 60,000, being the aggregate of the three sums of Rs. 20,000 each to be paid by the donees on the aforesaid deeds of gifts, should be deducted in determining the total value of the gift under Section 6 of the Gift-tax Act. The Gift-tax Officer rejected this contention on the ground that the payment of Rs. 60,000 could not be attributed to the gift.
(3.) On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the liability to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 by each of the donees was only a personal liability of the donees without any incumbrance being specially attached to the property. Accordingly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that such personal liability of the donee was not going to affect the market value of the property gifted, and as such the reduction of the value of the gifted property as claimed by the assessee could not be granted. He, therefore, upheld the order of the Gift-tax Officer.;