TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as erred in law and on the facts while upholding the addition of Rs. 77,17,230 made by the AO on account of valuation of equity shares as per r. 9. 3. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of the issue involved in these grounds of appeals are that both the asses sees owned certain shares of M/s Vardhman Spg. Mills Ltd. and M/s Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. In the returns of wealth filed, the assessees had shown value of these shares as per r. 9A of Sch. III to the WT Act. However, the assessees did not file the certificates from an authorized accountant as required under second proviso to r. 9A. The AO observed that the assessees had an option to declare the value of quoted equity shares as per r. 9A. But they are required to furnish the certificates from the authorized accountant along with the returns. In these cases, the assessees failed to furnish the certificates of the accountant. Therefore, the AO adopted the value of shares as quoted in the market on the valuation date as per provisions of r. 9 of Sch. III. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the WTO, the assessees filed appeals before the first appellate authority and contended that the provisions of r. 9A were on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered with reference to the provisions of s. 80J(6A) of the IT Act. Sec. 80J(6A) also required furnishing of audit report along with the return of income duly verified by an accountant. Rule 9A also required furnishing of certificate by an accountant along with the return of wealth. Therefore, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jaideep Industries, would equally apply to the facts of the present case. As regards reliance of the learned counsel on the two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in CST VS. Auraiya Chamber of Commerce (1987) 167 ITR 458 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition VS. Mst. Katiji Ors. (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 23 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we find that the same are on distinguishable facts. In fact, in the case of CST VS. Auraiya Chamber of Commerce, the STO had completed an assessment in respect of certain forward transactions and the assessee had paid sales-tax thereon. Subsequently, the apex Court held the levy of sales tax on forward transactions ultra vires. In the light of these facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the tax was collected without the authority of law and the State had no right to the money paid by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaideep Industries. While reiterating the ratio of their earlier judgement in the case of Jaideep Industries, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held the ratio of their earlier judgment in the case of Jaideep Industries, would have been equally applicable had the CBDT not issued the Circular, dt. 9th Feb., 1978, as per which the filing of the audit report under s. 12A(b) along with the return of income was not mandatory. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not overruled their earlier judgment in the case of Jaideep Industries, rather reiterated their earlier judgment. It may be mentioned that the provisions of s. 12A(b) are in pari materia with the r. 9A of Sch. III to the WT Act. In this case, the CBDT has not issued any circular to the effect that certificate of the accountant filed after the return of wealth was filed would amount to compliance with the provisions of r. 9A, Sch. III. Therefore, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jaideep Industries would equally apply to the facts of the present cases. 11. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position discussed above and respectfully following the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the records and carefully gone through the orders of the tax authorities below as Nell as the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. l2. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals of the assssees vide order dt. 30th Jan., 2003, placed reliance mainly on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jaideep Industries and, observed that this judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would equally apply to the facts of the instant case of the assessee because in that case, their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of s. 80J(6A) of the IT Act, which required furnishing of audit report along with the return of income duly verified by an accountant, as well as r. 9A as involved in the instant case of the assessees also required furnishing of certificate by an accountant along with certificate of wealth. 13. In that very order, the Tribunal further observed that though the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Oil Allied, Industries, relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, is contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Hary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
