TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned by the assessee and the wealth assessed by the Wealth-tax Officer was more than the limit prescribed under rule 3B of the Wealth-tax Rules ?" In order to appreciate the import of the question, only a reference to the admitted facts is necessary, which can be stated thus : The assessment relates to the year 1971-72 (with 31st March, 1972, as the valuation date) and the year 1972-73 (with 31st March, 1973, as the valuation date). The assets involved were a one-third share in a house situated at Rani Jhansi Road and another property situated at Sohan Lal Lane exclusively owned by the assessee. For the former asset, the value returned by the assessee was Rs. 35,000. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the value of the construction as sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under this Act, the Wealth-tax Officer may refer the valuation of any asset to a Valuation Officer-. (a) in a case where the value of the asset as returned is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the Wealth-tax Officer is of opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value; (b) in any other case, if the Wealth-tax Officer is of opinion (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf ; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do ...... (6) On receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough Circular No. 96, dated November 25, 1972. In our opinion, counsel for the assessee is right in his submission. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, had occasion to consider that aspect of the matter. Their Lordships held that the rule of construction by reference to contemporanea expositio is a well-established rule for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it had received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute was plain and unambiguous. Their Lordships in this regard approvingly quoted the following lucid observation of Mookeriee J., in Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass [1908] ILR 35 Cal 701, 713: " It is a well-settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exist. It has been canvassed on behalf of the Revenue that the use of the expression " may " would indicate that the provision regarding reference to the Valuation Officer is directory and not mandatory. There is no doubt about the fact that the use of expressions " may and " shall " to some extent serves as an indicium to the intention of the Legislature and helps in deciding whether the given requirement is directory or mandatory in character, but the use of the expression " may or " shall " is never considered decisive in that regard. We may emphasise that if the provisions of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act are to be interpreted, as canvassed on behalf of the Revenue to mean that it vests a discretion in the Wealth-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
