Hashim Ali vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 06.05.2019 by his father gifting the property in question. The said gift deed was treated as sale of the property and on the basis of an ex parte inspection report, proceedings under section 33, read with section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner, in which the petitioner filed objection. Being dissatisfied with the objection, the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 was passed imposing deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, treating the said gift deed as sale of the property. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.03.2021without considering the material on record.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the cases of Sheel Mohan Bansal Vs. State of UP, Writ C No. 18282 of 2023 decided on 10.4.2023; Sumit Gupta Vs. State of UP, 2011 (113) RD 204, and Vijay Kumar Vs. Chief Controller, Board of Revenue and others, 2017 (136) RD 364, and 2 WRIC No. 7122 of 2022 submits that gift deed cannot be treated as sale of the property.

5. Per contra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned orders.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

7. It is admitted between the parties that a registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by his father, against which the proceedings under Sections 33/47A of the Stamp Act were initiated. The issue in hand is not res integra as this Court in the case of Sumit Gupta (supra) has already decided the present controversy.

8. The relevant part of the judgement passed in the case of Sumit Gupta (supra) is quoted hereunder:

8. It provides that a gift is chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance provided under Article 23 clause (a) for a consideration equal to the value of the property.

9. It may be noted that in the above Article words used are "value of the property" as distinguished from the "market value", meaning thereby that for the purposes of determining stamp duty on a gift-deed market value is not required to be mentioned/determined. The disclosure of the value of the property in the gift is sufficient for the purposes of payment of stamp duty.

10. A perusal of Section 47-A of the Act indicates that it comes into play only where the market value of the property in the instrument is disclosed to be lesser than that determined in accordance with the Rules made under the Act. So disclosure of market value of the property is mandatory for the applicability of Section 47-A of the Act and it should be less than the market value determined under the Rules ie. the circle rate prescribed/notified under the Act/Rules.

11. Thus, there is a clear departure in the language used in Article 33 of the Schedule I-B of the Act and Section 47-A of the Act. Section 47-A of the Act uses the expression in "market value" whereas for levying stamp duty on a gift-deed Article 33 of Schedule 1-B of the Act uses the expression "value of the property".

12. The legislature in its wisdom has differently used the words "value of the property"' and "market value" in the Act. It is not without purpose. "Market value" 3 WRIC No. 7122 of 2022 refers to the value of the property prevailing in the market on which the prospective purchaser is ready and willing to purchase and seller is ready and willing to sell the property in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, market value is a bilateral transaction depended upon the will of two persons. On the other hand, 'value' simply connotes the estimated monetary worth of the property in the eyes of the seller and is in the nature of a unilateral act.

13. In conveyance, such as sale of property, generally two parties, ie. seller and purchaser are involved and the market value of the property is determined on the basis of the market forces ie., demand and supply of the commodity. In a deed of gift it is only the person making the gift who is relevant. It is up to him how he values his property. The value of the property in the eyes of the person receiving the gift is not material. This being the situation, the legislature has deliberately used the word "value of the property" in Article 33 while subjecting the gift to stamp duty and has refrained from using the term "market value".

14. Accordingly, when market value is not at all relevant for levying stamp duty on a gift deed the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act does not come into play which necessitate determination of market value.

9. Similar view has been taken in the cases of Vijay Kumar (supra) and Sheel Mohan Bansal (supra).

10. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

12. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner during pendency of the present litigation shall be refunded to him within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment of the said amount. October 9, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 06.05.2019 by his father gifting the property in question. The said gift deed was treated as sale of the property and on the basis of an ex parte inspection report, proceedings under section 33, read with section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner, in which the petitioner filed objection. Being dissatisfied with the objection, the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 was passed imposing deficiency of stamp duty, along with interest and penalty, treating the said gift deed as sale of the property. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.03.2021without considering the material on record.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the cases of Sheel Mohan Bansal Vs. State of UP, Writ C No. 18282 of 2023 decided on 10.4.2023; Sumit Gupta Vs. State of UP, 2011 (113) RD 204, and Vijay Kumar Vs. Chief Controller, Board of Revenue and others, 2017 (136) RD 364, and 2 WRIC No. 7122 of 2022 submits that gift deed cannot be treated as sale of the property.

5. Per contra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned orders.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

7. It is admitted between the parties that a registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by his father, against which the proceedings under Sections 33/47A of the Stamp Act were initiated. The issue in hand is not res integra as this Court in the case of Sumit Gupta (supra) has already decided the present controversy.

8. The relevant part of the judgement passed in the case of Sumit Gupta (supra) is quoted hereunder:

8. It provides that a gift is chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance provided under Article 23 clause (a) for a consideration equal to the value of the property.

9. It may be noted that in the above Article words used are "value of the property" as distinguished from the "market value", meaning thereby that for the purposes of determining stamp duty on a gift-deed market value is not required to be mentioned/determined. The disclosure of the value of the property in the gift is sufficient for the purposes of payment of stamp duty.

10. A perusal of Section 47-A of the Act indicates that it comes into play only where the market value of the property in the instrument is disclosed to be lesser than that determined in accordance with the Rules made under the Act. So disclosure of market value of the property is mandatory for the applicability of Section 47-A of the Act and it should be less than the market value determined under the Rules ie. the circle rate prescribed/notified under the Act/Rules.

11. Thus, there is a clear departure in the language used in Article 33 of the Schedule I-B of the Act and Section 47-A of the Act. Section 47-A of the Act uses the expression in "market value" whereas for levying stamp duty on a gift-deed Article 33 of Schedule 1-B of the Act uses the expression "value of the property".

12. The legislature in its wisdom has differently used the words "value of the property"' and "market value" in the Act. It is not without purpose. "Market value" 3 WRIC No. 7122 of 2022 refers to the value of the property prevailing in the market on which the prospective purchaser is ready and willing to purchase and seller is ready and willing to sell the property in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, market value is a bilateral transaction depended upon the will of two persons. On the other hand, 'value' simply connotes the estimated monetary worth of the property in the eyes of the seller and is in the nature of a unilateral act.

13. In conveyance, such as sale of property, generally two parties, ie. seller and purchaser are involved and the market value of the property is determined on the basis of the market forces ie., demand and supply of the commodity. In a deed of gift it is only the person making the gift who is relevant. It is up to him how he values his property. The value of the property in the eyes of the person receiving the gift is not material. This being the situation, the legislature has deliberately used the word "value of the property" in Article 33 while subjecting the gift to stamp duty and has refrained from using the term "market value".

14. Accordingly, when market value is not at all relevant for levying stamp duty on a gift deed the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act does not come into play which necessitate determination of market value.

9. Similar view has been taken in the cases of Vijay Kumar (supra) and Sheel Mohan Bansal (supra).

10. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

12. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner during pendency of the present litigation shall be refunded to him within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment of the said amount. October 9, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad