9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Commissioner of Wealth-tax order under section 25(2) and restoring that of the Wealth-tax Officer when the valuation of shares held by the assessee in Metalman Pipe Mfg. Co. Ltd. should have been made by applying mandatory provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that action under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act did not lie when two opinions were possible in the matter and the Wealth-tax Officer preferred the opinion which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and hence erroneous ? " Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee, were allowed on November 22, 1989. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, the Department filed the applications under section 27(1) of the Act. On these applications, registered as R. A. Nos. 9 to 12/(Ind) of 1990, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid two questions of law. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant---Department, and Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned counsel for the non-applicant---assessee. Shri Bagadia very frankly submitted that in view of the controversy set at rest by the apex court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, the questions as noted above, are required to be answered in favour of the Department and against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to lead to vesting of uncalled for wide discretion in the hands of the Wealth-tax Officers/valuing authorities. It would lead to uncertainty and may be arbitrariness in practice. Where there is a rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets. It is equally well to remember that rule 1D does not treat the break-up value as the market value. A deduction of 15 per cent. is made in the break-up value to arrive at the market value. It is equally relevant to notice that rule 1D uses the expression 'shall', which prima facie indicates its mandatory character. " It is, thus, clear that the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
