Judgment :- K. A. SWAMI C. J. The Revenue sought for referring the following question to this court for decision "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its view that the amount of Rs. 28, 250 representing half share of the difference between the document price and the market value is not assessable as deemed gift for purposes of the Gifttax Act, 1958 ?"* As per the order passed by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 28, 250, which represents the difference of the amount between the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed and the actual market value of the property in question sold, is stated to be in the hands of the assessee and on that basis, it has been assessed to wealth-tax and the assessment made under the Wealth-tax Act has become final. On that basis only, the Tribunal has held that it cannot be considered to be a gift because it has been actually received by the assessee. This finding is based upon the wealth-tax assessment order. Therefore, it is also not permissible for the Revenue to contend to the contrary. When once the difference of the amount is stated to be in the hands of the assessee, the question of application of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act does not arise because that relates to a case where the property is transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration, the amount by which the market value exceeds the value of the consideration shall be deemed to be a gift made by the transferor. Therefore, it is clear that section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act will be covering a case where the difference of the amount between the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and the market value of the property had not been received by the transferor. On the other hand, in the instant case by reason of the wealth-tax assessment, it cannot be held that it has not been received by the transferor, namely, the assessee. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to refer to the several other contentions urged by learned counsel for the Revenue. On the other hand, in the instant case by reason of the wealth-tax assessment, it cannot be held that it has not been received by the transferor, namely, the assessee. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to refer to the several other contentions urged by learned counsel for the Revenue. It is also not necessary to refer to the decisions in K. P. Varghese v. ITO; CGT v. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd. CIT v. Bharani Pictures and CGT v. B. Sathiar Singh For the reasons stated above, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.