1996 (1) TMI 41 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions relating to valuation of property under Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Applicability of amended rules contained in Schedule III to the Act for pending cases.
3. Whether the Tribunal correctly refused to refer the question of law to the High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan pertains to an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, where the Revenue sought direction for the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the valuation of a property. The controversy arose from the valuation of the share of the assessee in an immovable property, "Jindal General Manufacturing Company, Delhi." The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the share at Rs. 16,19,000 based on the report of the District Valuation Officer, who valued the property higher. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the assessment and directed a fresh assessment considering the District Valuation Officer's report. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to value the share as per the amended rules in Schedule III after affording proper hearing. The Revenue then sought to refer the question of law to the High Court, which the Tribunal declined.

The primary issue in this case was the applicability of the amended provisions for valuation, effective from April 1, 1989, to the pending case. The High Court held that procedural provisions, like those in Schedule III, apply to pending cases as they are rules of evidence. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886, it was established that procedural laws apply to pending cases. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to not refer the question to the High Court was deemed correct as the issue was settled by the Supreme Court's judgment.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, stating that since the controversy was conclusively decided by the Supreme Court's judgment, there was no merit in referring the question to the High Court. The judgment emphasized the application of procedural laws to pending cases and upheld the Tribunal's decision in this matter.