ANAND PRAKASH, A. M.: present appeal is by Revenue whereas cross objection is by assessee. assessee was beneficiary under deed of waqf executed in 1940 by late A. B. Syed Ahmad Husain Rizvi, maternal grand father of assessee. He was entitled to certain income in aforesaid waqf during his life-time. By deed of release dt. 27th March, 1974 assessee released his aforementioned life interest, with view to accelerate interest of other beneficiaries who would be entitled to said benefits after his life time. persons to whom interest of assessee to released was to go were his daughter and his sons. value of such life interest was worked out to be Rs. 46,161 as per assessee's letter dt. 6th Nov., 1978. GTO regarded above release of his life interest in waqf as deemed gift within meaning of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of GT Act, 1958. value of gift was, however, taken by GTO at Rs. 64,454 as against declaration of Rs. 46,861 made by assessee. assessee challenged aforesaid assessment before ld. AAC who relying on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CGT vs. Mrs. Jer Marvis Lubinoff 1978 CTR (Bom) 28: (1978) 114 ITR 90 (Bom), cancelled assessment made by GTO. present appeal of Revenue is against aforesaid order of ld. AAC of GT. Though cross objection, assessee submits that evaluation of life interest at Rs. 64,454 by GTO was wrong and that real value of gift, if at all it was gift, would be Rs. 51,977. On behalf of Revenue, reliance is placed on s. 4(1)(c) of GT Act and it is pointed out that, in terms of aforesaid clause, gift was clearly made out and that if assessee wanted to avail of exception to general rule enunciated in cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4, onus was on him to show that gift in question was made for bona fide reasons. assessee has not discharged this onus and AAC clearly erred in going on basis that onus had been properly discharged by assessee. Cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 read as under: (a) .................. (b) .................. (c) where there is release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture or abandonment of any debt, contract or other actionable claim or of any interest in property by any person, value of release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture or abandonment, to extent to which it has not been found to satisfaction of GTO to have been bona fide, shall be deemed to be gift made by p e r s o n responsible for release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture or abandonment. analysis of aforesaid clause clearly shows that it consists of two parts. In first part certain unilateral actions which result in benefiting one person, while causing detriment to other person, without any consideration have been classed as gift so even though in terms of Transfer of Property Act, they are not gifts. Thus, release or surrender or abandonment of interest in property by person is deemed to be gift made by person who released, surrendered or abandoned aforesaid property. To aforesaid general rule, exception has been built in second part of clause, which provides that, if aforesaid release, etc., is shown to have been done bona fide and if GTO is satisfied about aforesaid nature of release, etc., act of release, abandonment, etc., would not be deemed to be gift is, prima facie, on person who wishes to bring in his case within exception. It is for him to establish, to satisfaction of GTO, that release, abandonment, etc., of interest in property was bona fide. In present case, assessee has released his life interest in Waqf in favour of his sons and daughter. life interest in Waqf was property. Therefore, what assessee has done is releasing his interest in property. prima facie, therefore, this release would be deemed to be gift under cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4. It is, however, open to assessee to bring his case within exception, provided in aforesaid clause itself, by showing to GTO that release in question was done for bona fide reasons. only reason given by assessee to GTO for making aforesaid release was that it had been done to accelerate interest of other beneficiaries in Waqf property. GTO does not regard aforesaid reasons per se as establishing that release was bona fide. ld. AAC of GT does not give finding that aforesaid reason was enough to establish that release bona fide. He appears to have been influenced by decision of Bombay High Court referred to above which proceeded on finding of fact by Tribunal that gift was bona fide. AAC omitted to note that in aforesaid case their Lordships did not let counsel for Revenue to urge question of bona fides in terms of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of GT Act on short ground that Tribunal had held in said case that gift was bona fide. following observations of their Lordships, at p. 109 are relevant. After quoting cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 their Lordships observed as follows: "The answer to such question will depend upon finding as to whether GTO was satisfied that deed of release, surrender, etc. has not been found to have been bona fide. In fact, this is question of fact, on which Tribunal has given clear and unequivocal finding that it is impossible to come to conclusion that deed of release is not executed bona fide. Such finding cannot be challenged in reference before High Court, because it is only restricted to determining questions of law arising from orders of Tribunal. Such contention is not open to Mr. Joshi so far as deed of release or surrender or relinquishment is concerned." It would be seen from above observation of their Lordships that they took finding that release was bona fide in that case as finding of fact by which they were bound, while answering reference. That is why, they observed that it was "not open to Mr. Joshi" to go into question of bona fides of release. observation of Hon'ble Bombay High Court would, therefore, be relevant in present case only if finding with regard bona fides of release having been proved to satisfaction of GTO is vied. Apparently, ld. AAC of GT did not apply his mind to this requirement of section. He proceeded on presumption that gift was bona fide. Whether or not it was so, was subject-matter of determination by him. He cannot assume fact so, was subject-matter of determination by him. He cannot assume fact which has to be proved by assessee to satisfaction of GTO. For finding out as to whether or not release was bona fide many facts have to be seen, viz., what was income and wealth of release, whether releasing his interest in property he was seeking advantage in matters regarding income- tax and wealth-tax what was income and wealth of persons in whose favour release of interest in property was done. If effect of his release was natural with regard to taxation effects, prima facie, release would be bona fide. Otherwise, it might be open to GTO or AAC of GT to hold, on facts as found, that release was not bona fide and that it had been made for oblique motive including avoidance of tax. In this connection, it may be useful to refer to statement of objects/reasons for introduction of GT Bill in Lok Sabha on 28th Feb., 1958. same reads as follows: "The objects of this Bill is to levy tax on gifts made by individuals, HUF, companies, firms and AOP. Gift from one person to another provide convenient means of avoiding or reducing liability to Estate Duty, Income-tax, Wealth-tax and expenditure tax. only objective method aforesaid object of checking such attempts at evasion of tax liability is by levying tax on gifts............" Thus, it would be seen that it would be relevant inquiry for GTO to make in context of aforesaid case as to whether gift in question was being made by assessee to his sons and daughter as "a convenient means o f avoiding or reducing income-tax, wealth-tax, etc. If it be so, there might be reasons for him to be not satisfied as to genuineness of bona fides of gift. He may also usefully refer to observations of Select Committee at whose instance exception clause was built in cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s.4. facts bearing on this aspect are not available on record and as neither GTO nor AAC of GT have gone into these questions, it appears to us appropriate to set aside orders of both authorities and to restore matter back no GTO with direction that he should give opportunity to assessee of proving that relinquishment of interest in property in question was bona fide. After taking such evidence on record he may register his own finding in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, we will treat appeal as allowed. cross objection is at this stage, premature because unless aforesaid release is held to be taxable gift in terms of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4, question of evaluating value of life interest would not arise. As and when it becomes relevant, GTO would without doubt go into it, in accordance with Jellico's formula for evaluating value of gift. Reference to r. 1B of WT Rules may be made, in this connection. For reasons stated above, cross objection is rejected. *** GIFT-TAX OFFICER v. MOHD. NASEEM FAROOQ