9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of rule IBB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 - Applicability of rule IBB to assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 Analysis: The judgment pertains to five reference applications filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax concerning the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. The primary issue revolves around the interpretation and applicability of rule IBB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The Tribunal, in a common order, endorsed the Commissioner's directive to determine the value of a specific property based on rule IBB. However, the Department contends that rule IBB became effective only on April 1, 1979, and should apply from the assessment year 1979-80 onwards. The Department argues that the Tribunal's decision overlooks this aspect. The petitioner highlights that the matter has been previously referred by the Tribunal and the High Court under section 27(3) of the Act in various cases. The respondent, on the other hand, asserts that rule IBB is a procedural provision and, therefore, retrospective, applying to pending assessments as of April 1, 1979. They cite legal precedents supporting their stance, emphasizing that the rule's applicability is not limited to future assessments. The respondent also draws attention to a previous court order dismissing a similar question raised by the Department regarding the applicability of a different provision of the Wealth-tax Act. The court, after considering the arguments presented, directs the Tribunal to consolidate the cases for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 and refer the question of law regarding the valuation of the property at 14, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, under rule IBB for the court's decision. The judgment underscores the significance of resolving the question of law surrounding the application of rule IBB to the assessment years in question. It acknowledges the differing perspectives presented by the Department and the respondent regarding the retrospective nature of procedural provisions like rule IBB. The court's decision to refer the matter for further deliberation signifies the need for clarity on the interpretation and implementation of rule IBB in the context of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. By directing the Tribunal to present a consolidated statement and pose a specific question for the court's determination, the judgment aims to address the underlying controversy and provide a definitive resolution to the issue at hand.
|
