A gift of immovable property becomes complete only when the document is registered. Mere delivery of the document or possession of the property is not sufficient.

N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the CIT, Coimbatore rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under s. 24 of the GT Act, 1958.

2. The facts leading to the filling of the writ petition are that the petitioner on 8th June, 1970 had made a settlement of some of her lands in favour of her daughter and as per the guideline value maintained by the Registration Department of the State of Tamil Nadu, the value of the land was taken to be Rs. 1, 20, 180 for the purpose of registration of the deed. The petitioner filed a return of gift for the asst. yr. 1970-71 on the ground that the settlement deed was executed on 12th February, 1970 and the donee was also put in possession of the land thereafter and the donee was rightly in the possession of the land since the date of execution of the deed of settlement. The case of the petitioner was that since the gift was made during the financial year 1969-70, the relevant assessment for levy of tax would be 1970-71 and there was no obligation on her part to file the return of gift for the asst. yr. 1971-72. The GTO has not accepted the submission of the petitioner and held that the registration of the dead of settlement settling the immovable property took place on 8th June, 1970, and the gift was properly chargeable under the GT Act for the asst. yr. 1971-72. In this view, he determined the value of the property gifted at Rs. 1, 30, 000 and made an assessment of the gift made for the asst. yr. 1971-72.

3. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the CIT challenging the order of assessment. The CIT was of the opinion that the ownership of the immovable property would pass after the deed of settlement is registered by the appropriate authority and the fact that the donee was put in possession on 12th February, 1970 is not material and the ownership over the gifted property would pass only on 8th June, 1970, when the settlement deed was registered, which fell during the financial year 1970-71 relating to the asst. yr. 1971-72. He, therefore, held that the GTO was justified in levying gift-tax for the asst. yr. 1971-72. The CIT was also of the opinion that the value fixed by the GTO was not correct. He also held that the value of the property as claimed by the petitioner at Rs. 83, 330 cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence and he determined the market value of the property at Rs. 1, 20, 180, on the basis of the guideline value of the Registration Department and allowed the petition in part. It is against this order, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that by virtue of s. 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, once registration of the document is effected, the title would relate back to the date of execution of the deed and the transaction would become complete when the document was registered. According to the petitioner, it is stated that the registered document would operate from the date of execution as it has retrospective effect to the date of execution of the deed. It is, therefore, stated that the order of the CIT holding that the ownership would only pass after the registration of the deed of conveyance is not sustainable in law. It is also stated that the GT Act is a complete code and it is not necessary to look into the provisions of other Acts, when the gift is complete under the GT Act. It is stated that as per the valuation report filed by the petitioner, the value of the land was fixed and there are no grounds to discard the valuation report and the order of the CIT holding that no evidence was produced by the petitioner as regards the valuation of the land was not correct. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled to the relief under s. 18A of the GT Act.

4. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a gift of an immovable property takes effect, what has to be seen is whether there was a gift under the provisions of the GT Act, and it