2004 (11) TMI 66 - HC - Wealth-tax

Question of law - whether the appeal involves any substantial questions of law for admitting the appeal under section 27A - dispute in this appeal relates to the rate of plot owned by an assessee value of plot Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner and direct the Assessing Officer to value the plot at Rs. 18 per sq. ft. in the assessment year 1987-88 and thereafter make increase of 71/2 per cent, for appreciation in the later years This appeal neither involves any interpretation of a section, nor a rule, what is involved is the rate at which the valuation of plot owned by the assessee has to be worked out - No infirmity is pointed out by the appellant-revenue in the finding recorded by the Tribunal Revenue s appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding the valuation of a plot owned by the assessee for the assessment years 1987-88, 1989-90 to 1992-93.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment, delivered by A.M. Sapre J., pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The core issue in these appeals is whether there are substantial questions of law warranting the admission of the appeal under section 27A of the Act. The dispute revolves around the valuation of a plot owned by the assessee, with the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to value the plot at Rs. 18 per sq. ft. for the assessment year 1987-88 and subsequently increase it by 7 1/2 per cent for the following years. The Revenue challenged this decision in the appeal.

The High Court, after hearing the arguments from both parties, found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The court observed that the impugned order was based on facts and a concession, without involving any substantial legal issues for the court to examine. The judgment emphasized that the determination of the valuation rate for the plot is a factual inquiry that falls within the domain of the authorities, based on prevailing rates in the area and sales of adjoining plots. The court clarified that under section 27A, it cannot interfere with factual findings unless they are completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to the law. In this case, the court did not identify any such flaws in the Tribunal's decision.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that there was no basis to challenge the Tribunal's order, which was grounded in facts and a concession. The court concluded that since the appeal lacked merit, it was dismissed outright. This judgment sets a precedent for other connected appeals involving similar issues and the same assessee, providing clarity on the limited scope of judicial review under section 27A in matters primarily concerning factual determinations rather than legal interpretations.