These nine appeals, though they have been filed against nine separate orders of AAC, involve common question. They are, therefore, disposed of by this single order. 2. dispute in these appeals relates to deemed gift which Shri Abdul Qayume was alleged to have made to some of his relations. It appears that originally Shri Abdul Qayume was owner of properties in dispute which h e sold to S/Shri Vishnu Saran Gupta and Shyam Sunder Lal Gupta for Rs. 30,000 by registered sale deed dated 12-2-1963. same day these vendees emanated to resell properties to him or his nominee for Rs. 30,000 within three years. They also leased out said property to deceased assessee by other deed executed that very day. agreement to resell property was renewed on different dates and lastly on 9-11-1970 with change in amount of consideration from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 45,000. In year under consideration, different portions of property were sold to some relatives of deceased and two educational institutions for sum of Rs. 81,000. In respect of this sale, ITO noticed that assessee had paid stamp duty payable at Rs. 1,40,000. He, accordingly, initiated proceedings for levy of capital gains tax and gift-tax in respect of this sale. Initially, he brought to tax sum of Rs. 64,406 as being amount of deemed gift by deceased on assumption that market value thereof was only Rs. 1,40,000. However, revenue audit party pointed out that market value of properties should be taken at Rs. 2,44,240 on basis of valuation shown by assessee in respect of these properties in his wealth-tax return for assessment year 1972-73. GTO, therefore, ultimately brought to tax sum of Rs. 1,64,646 (after allowing statutory deduction for Rs. 5,000) as value of deemed gift made by assessee to various vendees. Before these proceedings could be concluded, deceased assessee had already died and assessments were made on his nine legal heirs who are now respondents before us. 3. All these nine persons went in appeals to AAC, who discussed matter at length in his order in case of Smt. Akhtari Begum [GT Appeal No. 18/II of 1982-83/M]. According to them, deceased assessee was not owner of properties in question at time of sale and in support of this argument representative of heirs of deceased relied upon decision of Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 3626 (Delhi) of 1980, dated 15-1-1982. He then quoted certain observations made in order of Tribunal, which reads as under: " We are unable to appreciate second ground taken by revenue in present case. In fact, in IT Appeal No. 5142 (Delhi) of 1976-77, dated 31-7- 1979, Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', had examined facts of case elaborately and held as follows in paragraphs 8 to 10. We have carefully considered submission of learned representative of parties. assessee sold property to Guptas by sale deed dated 12-3-1968. This d e e d did not contain any item for repurchase of property by assessee. assessee took property on lease by separate deed and there was no question of payment of interest on sale proceeds by assessee. agreement of repurchase was by contemporaneous deed of 12-3-1967 for amount of Rs. 30,000 for which property has been sold. repurchase was to be made within period of 3 years. These facts show that parties had no intention to treat sale as mortgage. subsequent renewal of agreement does not change original position and creates relationship of debtor and creditors between parties. assessee, therefore, was not owner of property at time of sale. " Ultimately, AAC concluded that deceased was not owner of properties and, therefore, there was no question of applicability of section 4(1)(a) of Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'), and as such assessee was not liable to any gift-tax. He, therefore, cancelled assessment. Following this line of reasoning, he also cancelled remaining assessments made on eight other legal heirs of deceased. revenue has come up in second appeal before us. 4. Notice of hearing of these appeals was sent to all respondents by registered post and acknowledgments of Smt. Akhtari Begum, respondent in GT Appeal No. 32, and Shri Lique Ahmed, respondent in GT Appeal No. 27, are on record. In case of other respondents, letters have been returned with following endorsements: 1. GT Appeal No. 25, Smt. Sarwari Begum Refused 2. GT Appeal No. 28. Smt. Tazaim Fatima Refused to accept 3. GT Appeal No. 29, Smt. Afsari Begum Not traceable 4. GT Appeal No. 30, Smt. Rah Jahan Begum Left without address 5. GT Appeal No. 31, Smt. Shamim Johar Left without address 6. GT Appeal No. 33, Shri Chand Miyan Refused to accept letter sent to Mohd. Illyas, GT Appeal No. 26, has not been received back but is presumed to have been duly served. Nobody appeared on behalf of t h e respondents at time of hearing of these appeals. Since main respondent in whose case AAC has written detailed order was served in person and point involved is common, we have heard departmental representative ex parte. 5. After carefully considering all facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that order of AAC in question cannot be sustained. AAC has not given any finding of his own but has come to conclusion relying upon decision of Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 3628 (Delhi) of 1980. relevant observations contained therein, we have already quoted in extenso above. To understand exact implications of that order, we sent for order in IT Appeal No. 5142 (Delhi) of 1976-77 decided by 'E' Bench of Tribunal on 31-7-1979. In fact, we have collected and narrated some of above facts from said order of Tribunal. perusal of said order would show that conclusion now arrived at by AAC is wholly misconceived. question involved before Tribunal at that time was taxability of capital gains on sales in favour of various vendees. No doubt, Tribunal incidentally held that deceased assessee was not owner of property at time of sale, but this finding would not at all exonerate present assessee from liability to tax on alleged present gift. Para 9 of order of Tribunal reads as under: " 9. assessee was in possession of property. By agreement, assessee acquired interest in property as he could defend his possession o n basis of agreement on principle of part performance. Such interest, in our view, amounts to capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) of Income-tax Act. assessee, therefore, is liable to capital gains tax, in respect of sale of that interest. assessee received Rs. 36,000 in respect of his interest. " 6. Of course, Tribunal held that section 52(1) of Act was not attracted nor did case fall under section 52(2) as no receipt of any on-money had been proved. But ultimately, Tribunal, after allowing certain further expenses claimed by deceased assessee, directed GTO to recompute capital gain on this transaction. Therefore, finding of Tribunal that deceased assessee was not owner of property [which of course is subject-matter of reference before Hon'ble High Court in RA Nos. 1281 and 1308 (Delhi) of 1979] does not in any way lead to conclusion that he was not transferor of properties in question. In fact, while stating facts in this case, in para 2 of order, Tribunal has mentioned that deceased assessee along with Guptas had sold different portions of properties to six near relatives of deceased and two educational institutions. Out of sale consideration, only Rs. 45,000 had been received by Guptas under agreement. In return filed by deceased, he had himself disclosed capital gain of Rs. 19,000 computing same after adjusting Rs. 45,000 received by Guptas and some other expenses and cost of improvements incurred by him. This had been done by assessee treating himself as owner of properties and Guptas as mortgagees. Income from these properties had already been assessed in hands of deceased assessee. All these observations and findings of Tribunal would lead us to irresistible conclusion that if there was any deemed gift involved in transaction, liability to pay tax thereon was that of deceased assessee because it was he who was treating himself as owner of property and was actually taxed on capital gains arising out of same. Again, in present assessment orders, GTO has mentioned that audit party had pointed out that market value of properties should be taken at Rs. 2,45,240 on basis of valuation shown by deceased assessee of eight properties in his wealth-tax return for relevant assessment year, so that assessee's own conduct would fully justify levy of gift-tax on transactions of sales in question even if for some technical reasons he could not be considered owner of properties in question. 7. Coming to liability of assessee as pointed out above, Tribunal has already held that section 51(2) or section 52(2) did not apply to assessee's case as no more consideration over and above sale price mentioned in deeds had been passed on to assessee under table. This conclusion was arrived at in view of observations of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192. This position of law has now been finally affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597. However, in this very judgment there are some pertinent observations of their Lordships which read as under: " This construction which we are placing on sub-section (2) also marches in step with Gift-tax Act, 1958. If capital asset is transferred for consideration below its market value, difference between market value and full value of consideration received in respect of transfer would amount to gift liable to tax under Gift-tax Act, 1958, but if construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. This would be anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by Legislature, since Income-tax Act, 1961, and Gift-tax Act, 1958, are parts of integrated scheme of taxation and same amount which is chargeable as gift could not be intended to be charged also as capital gains. " reading of same leads us to conclusion that deceased was certainly liable to tax on deemed gift within meaning of clause (a) of section 4(1). Accordingly, we are of opinion that orders of AAC are bad in law and cannot be sustained. 8. AAC has not considered merits of appeals filed by various legal representatives of deceased. It appears that point requires little further examination inasmuch as in original proceedings culminating in appeal before Tribunal preferred to above, full sale consideration was taken by authorities below at Rs. 1,40,000 only, amount on which deceased and Guptas had paid stamp duty. Now GTO has taken value thereof at Rs. 2,45, 240 on basis of valuation shown by deceased in his wealth-tax return for relevant assessment year. correct market value of properties, as it stood at relevant time, would have to be determined afresh and for this purpose, matters shall go back to AAC for fresh decision in light of our aforesaid observations. 9. For statistical purposes, appeals are treated as allowed. *** GIFT-TAX OFFICER v. SMT. SARWARI BEGUM