TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee declared its value at Rs. 2,50,000 in its return. In the course of assessment proceedings, relying on certain judicial pronouncements, it was contended by the assessee that the value of the impugned property should be worked out as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the said property was sold on 25-8-1987 for Rs. 20,00,000. If the fair market value in 1987 was Rs. 20.00 lacs, then considering the fact that there might have been an increase in the value in the interregnums between 1983 and 1987, the fair market value as on the valuation date, i.e., on 20-4-1983, could not be less than Rs. 15.00 lacs. He, therefore, adopted the value at Rs. 15.00 lacs. While doing so, he also observed that Rule 1BB merely provides a guide to work out the value, where no other method is available. But where there is evidence of the fair market value, the said rule cannot apply. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), on the contrary, accepted the plea of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value as per Rule 1BB. 4. The learned D/R reiterated and supported the views expressed by the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict the value of the property under section 7(4) on the ground that the property was used for residential purposes only for 3 months, whereas the section provided that the property should have been used for residential purposes throughout the period of twelve months. 7. In view of our upholding the first ground in favour of the assessee, this ground is rendered infructuous and hence rejected. II. Asstt. Year 1987-88 (WTA No. 209/Jp/91) : 8. In this year, in the first ground the department has challenged the jurisdiction of the first Appellate Authority in entertaining and deciding the appeal. 9. The facts : Original assessment was completed under section 16(1), on 29-12-1987 on total wealth of Rs. 1,63,210. In its return, the assessee had declared the value of the property at 69W, Greater Kailash, Delhi at Rs. 2,25,000. On examination of the assessment records, it was observed by the CWT that the assessee, along with the co-owner had entered into an agreement to sell the said property for Rs. 40.00 lacs. Moreover, he also observed that since whole of the property was vacant from January 1987 to 6-4-1987 (the relevant valuation date), rule 1BB was not applicable. The CWT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1996] 87 Taxman 124 (MP) and CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 15 (AP). It was accordingly urged by the learned counsel to uphold the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). 13. We have duly considered the arguments of both the sides, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that in the present appeal we are dealing with a case under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The provisions with which we are concerned to decide the issue before us are materially different in this Act than those obtaining under the Income-tax Act, 1961. With this background we proceed to decide the issue before us. 14. The first contention raised by the learned counsel was that since the department had the opportunity to raise the objection regarding jurisdiction before the first appellate authority, and that it failed to do so, the revenue cannot raise the objection now before the Tribunal. We are afraid, this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Under section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, it is mandatory for the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and the CIT(A) to give notice of hearing to the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reasonable, practical and liberal manner, as was held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ashoka Engg. Co. [1992] 194 ITR 645/63 Taxman 510. It is also well recognised that while interpreting statutes one should reach to its logical conclusion. In principle, we agree with the contention that the order passed in compliance of the directions of a higher authority is appealable. However, while applying this principle, it should not lead to an absurd situation. 17. Under section 26(1), the assessee who objects to an order passed by the CIT under section 25(2), may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. If the assessee does not avail of this right, it is at his own peril. Later, on if the assessee, files an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) on the same issue, against the order under section 16(1) passed consequentially to give effect to the order under section 25(2), it would lead to absurdity. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) is a subordinate authority to the CWT. Hence the order of the CWT under section 25(2) is subject to challenge only by a higher appellate authority, that is the Tribunal, which is provided for in section 26. Further, orders of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not remain half-hearted. This appears to be the essence and the underlying principle of the several judgments cited by the learned counsel. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature as well as of the courts to convey that, an issue which has been decided by a higher authority and the order is passed giving effect to such order as intended by the higher authority, the assessee will be entitled to embark on another round of litigation on the same route with the same facts and under the same circumstances. 19. Thus, in the instant case, the argument of the learned counsel is not acceptable under any circumstances. if accepted, as already observed by us earlier, it would also lead to functional dichotomy in the tax administration. We, accordingly accept the ground raised by the revenue and held that the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal of the assessee preferred by him against the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 16(1)/25(2). Since the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) is without jurisdiction, we need not go into the merits of the other grounds and the order of the Assessing Officer dated 17-4-1990 is resto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
