at the instance of the companymissioner of gift tax the tribu nal referred the following question to the high companyrt of kerala for opinion whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to the exemption in respect of g.k.
4500 3 g. k. hospital building erected on the garden land valued at rs.
the gift tax officer rejected the claim.
in the companyrse of the hearing the respondent claimed that the g.k.
17250 and 4 othi rights valued at rs.
27251 but he claimed exemption in respect of item number 2 i.e. the garden land.
sen s. k. aiyar and b. d. sharma for the appellant.
hospital and the adjoining land of 1.38 cents under s. 5 1 of the gift tax act?
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 2 1965 of the kerala high companyrt in i.t.r.
the appellate assistant commissioner companyfirmed the order of the gift tax officer.
3030.80 2 1.38 cents of garden land valued at rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 764 of 1967.
the respondent is a medical practitioner.
case number 26 of 1964.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. by our order dated january 1 1969 we directed the income tax appellate tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case together with a companyy of the deed of gift dated february 3 1960 executed by the respondent.
the companymissioner of gift tax kerala has appealed to this court.
in response to a numberice under s. 13 2 of the gift tax act 18 of 1958 the assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1960 61 disclosing taxable gifts of property valued at rs.
by the deed dated february 3 1960 he has given to his son thomas four items of property 1 one fifth share in cardamom estate valued at rs.
hospital building item number 3 was also exempt from liability to gift tax because of s. 5 1 xiv of the gift tax.
the respondent did number appear.
it was the case of the respondent that his son thomas had graduated in the medical science at an examination held in december 1959 and had joined the respondents profession as a house surgeon july 1960 and on that account the gifts in respect of items 2 3 were exempt from liability to tax.
the tri l12supci/70 10 bunal has submitted the supplementary statement of the case together with a companyy of the deed of gift executed by the respondent on february 3 1960.
the appellate tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to exemption in respect of items 2 and 3 .
