2004 (10) TMI 60 - HC - Wealth-tax

Power of Commissioner - Tribunal canceling the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act as without jurisdiction - Held that in view of the clear words used in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 263(1) of IT Act it is to be held that while calling for and examining the record of any proceeding under section 263(1) it is and it was open to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax not only to consider the record of that proceeding but also the record relating to that proceeding available to him at the time of examination. The provisions of section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act and section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act are analogous. In this view of the matter we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the valuation report could not have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Revenue appeal accepted

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Wealth-tax Act regarding the valuation of immovable property.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to set aside assessment orders under section 25(2) of the Act based on valuation reports.

Analysis:
The High Court was tasked with addressing two questions of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the Wealth-tax Act. The first issue revolved around the Tribunal's decision to distinguish a case from the Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT, questioning the justification of such a distinction. The second issue pertained to the legality of the Tribunal's cancellation of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax's order under section 25(2) of the Act, citing the Calcutta High Court decision in Ganga Properties v. ITO. The reference was related to the assessment year 1975-76, where the Wealth-tax Officer valued immovable property at Rs. 50,809, but the Commissioner deemed this valuation erroneous, initiating proceedings under section 25(2) and directing a reassessment based on a higher valuation of Rs. 1,52,000 by the Valuation Cell.

During the proceedings, the High Court heard arguments from the Revenue's counsel, emphasizing that the record available to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for initiating proceedings under section 25(2) should not be limited to what was before the Wealth-tax Officer during the original assessment. Drawing on a Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works, it was argued that the Commissioner could consider all relevant records at the time of examination, not just those present during the initial assessment. The Court found the provisions of section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act and section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act to be analogous, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal erred in holding that the valuation report could not be considered by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Consequently, the High Court answered both questions in the negative, favoring the Revenue and ruling against the assessee.