2005 (2) TMI 65 - HC - Wealth-tax

Applicability of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 - One scanning the controversy, we notice that the question of law involved in these matters relates to the interpretation of rule 2B(2) of Wealth-tax Rules and the controversy in question has already been settled by the apex court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO, and these matters can be decided by the Division Bench bearing in mind the ratio indicated in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the Division Bench with the request to dispose of all these similar applications in the light of the ratio indicated in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.
2. Interpretation of rule 2B(2) of Wealth-tax Rules.

Analysis:

1. Applicability of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957:
The judgment addressed the issue of whether rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 applied to the case at hand. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax had submitted applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had initially declined to refer the question under section 27(1) of the Act. The Division Bench decided that due to conflicting decisions by different Division Benches, the matters needed examination by the Full Bench. The judgment cited the Supreme Court case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485, emphasizing the significance of rule 2B(2) in determining asset values for wealth tax purposes. Ultimately, the matter was remitted back to the Division Bench for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485.

2. Interpretation of rule 2B(2) of Wealth-tax Rules:
The controversy in the case revolved around the interpretation of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules. The judgment highlighted that the question of law concerning the interpretation of rule 2B(2) had already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485. The court emphasized that when the market value of an asset exceeds its written down value or book value by more than 20%, the market value should be adopted for wealth tax assessment purposes. The judgment directed the Division Bench to decide on similar applications promptly, considering the ratio indicated in the Supreme Court's decision. It urged expedited resolution of the pending applications, which had been unresolved since 1988. The reference was answered accordingly, emphasizing adherence to the principles established in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485.