2010 (9) TMI 278 - HC - Wealth-tax

Computation of wealth - Sales tax liability - Initially the Company in the balance sheet has not shown such liability but subsequently the balance sheet has been amended and the liability of sales tax which has arisen by the Ordinance of 1990 has been shown - On the basis of the said liability of the sales tax, the assessee has claimed deduction in the valuation of the unquoted shares under Rule 1D of the Rules - claim of deduction has been disallowed by the assessing authority - Held that - Tribunal by its order allowed the appeal and the claim of the assessee in respect of deduction - sales tax which accrued retrospectively by the Ordinance of 1990 could not be ignored which was also reflected in the balance sheet - reference applications are, accordingly, rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules regarding the valuation of unquoted shares.
2. Disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee based on sales tax liability arising from the Ordinance of 1990.
3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequent decision by the Tribunal.
4. Consideration of past decisions and finality of orders in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The reference applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act were filed against the Tribunal's order rejecting the reference applications related to the valuation of unquoted shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules. The dispute centered around determining the value of unquoted shares of the Company held by the assessee under Rule 1D of the Rules.

2. The sales tax liability that arose to the Company due to the Ordinance of 1990 was a crucial factor in the case. Initially, the Company did not reflect this liability in the balance sheet, but later an amendment was made to include it. The assessee claimed a deduction in the valuation of unquoted shares based on this liability, which was disallowed by the assessing authority and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

3. The assessee, being dissatisfied with the CIT (Appeals) order, appealed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its decision dated 19.9.1994, allowed the appeal and accepted the claim of the assessee regarding the deduction. It held that the sales tax liability that accrued due to the Ordinance of 1990 could not be ignored, especially since it was reflected in the subsequent balance sheet.

4. The High Court, comprising Yatindra Singh and Rajes Kumar, JJ., found no error in the Tribunal's order dated 29.12.1995. The Court noted that a similar question had arisen in previous years in the case of the assessee, where the reference application was rejected, and no appeal was filed by the Department, making the order final. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the question sought by the revenue in the present reference applications, leading to the rejection of the reference applications.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the judgment, addressing each issue involved in the case concerning the interpretation of the Wealth Tax Act and Rules, the treatment of sales tax liability, the appellate process, and the finality of past decisions.