Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)

Section: 27(1),24(5)

Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)

Section: 27(1),24(5)

Law: Wealth Tax Rules, 1963

Section: 8(2)(3)(3A)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8),(9)

Valuation -- Valuation of Property -- Wealth Tax Officer adopting valuation of house property at Rs. 48000 i.e. 20 times of the gross annual letting value without obtaining prior approval of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner -- Tribunal while setting aside the order fixed the annual rental value of the property as it deemed fit -- Whether legal and proper -- Held yes -- JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SALEEM AKHTAR J..-- This is an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act raising the following question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in giving specific relief to the assessee when in the earlier part of the finding the order of the Wealth Tax Officer had been set aside to the extent of the valuation of the property? The respondent in his return declared the value of his house in Delhi Mercantile Housing Society at Rs. 35,000/- but the Wealth Tax Officer assessed it at Rs. 48,000/-. The respondent filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the Wealth Tax Officer had assessed the value property in question at 20 times of the gross annual letting value without taking prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required under the 2nd proviso to Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Wealth Tax Officer to accept the valuation of the property at Rs. 35,200/- and the assessment was to be modified accordingly. Mr. Waheed Farooqui, the learned counsel for the Department has contended that in view of the 2nd, proviso to Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, the learned Tribunal could have only set aside the order of the Wealth Tax Officer and was not competent to issue any direction that the assessment of the property should be accepted at Rs. 35,200/-. On the other hand Mr. Pasha the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that proviso is couched in mandatory form and as admittedly no prior permission of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been taken, the entire assessment was vitiated and no opportunity should be given to the Wealth Tax Officer to fill in the Lecuna.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492