Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1074 1998 SLD 1074 1998 PTD 1491 (1998) 228 ITR 650
Rajasthan High Court
D.B. Wealth Tax Reference No. 135 of 1995, decision dated: 16-01-1996
, B. R. ARORA AND P. C., JAIN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

VS

BHANWAR LAL GUPTA

Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957

Section: 27(3),25(2)

Wealth tax--- ----Valuation of property---Law applicable---Schedule III inserted w.e.f. 1-4-1989 is procedural and applicable to pending proceedings---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Sched. III . The provisions relating to valuation of property contained in Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, are procedural in nature and the procedural law is applicable to pending cases also. CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC) fol. JUDGEMENT B. R. ARORA, J.---The Revenue, by this application under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, has prayed that the Tribunal. may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in remanding the case to the Wealth Tax Officer for valuation of property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 and on wards?" The controversy and the dispute in this petition relates to the valuation of the share of the assessee in an immovable property, namely, "Jindal General Manufacturing Company, Delhi" which is situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. The assessee was assessed for his share in this property at Rs.16,19,000 in each year of assessment by the Wealth Tax Officer on the basis of the report of the approved valuer. The District Valuation Officer valued the suit property. at a higher value. According to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the valuation arrived at by the Wealth tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the District Valuation Officer has valued the suit property at substantially a higher figure. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, therefore, exercising his power under section 25(2) of the Act. set aside the assessment and directed the Wealth Tax Officer make assessment afresh according to law taking into consideration the report of the District Valuation Officer and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee-appellant. The assessee and the other co-owners preferred appeals before the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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