2008 (1) TMI 208 - HC - Wealth-tax

House allotted to employee by company Held that sec. 2(ea)(i)(1), applies not only to Director but other categories mentioned therein and that includes employee as also officer Tribunal was right in holding that the impugned premises ought to be valued at cost of acquisition in accordance with the second proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Act vis-a-vis the rent capitalization method tribunal failed to consider whether exception (3) of 2(ea)(i), is applicable, so matter is remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the exception in sub clause (1) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Valuation of the impugned premises under the second proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act.
3. Applicability of interest under Section 17B.
4. Adjudication of whether the appellant's case is covered by exception (3) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Act.

Interpretation of Exception in Sub Clause (1) of Clause (i) of Section 2(ea):
The court dismissed the first question regarding the allocation of flats to the appellant's employees, stating that the provision applies not only to Directors but also to other categories mentioned, including employees and officers. The judgment referenced the terminology used in the Wealth Tax Act and upheld the Tribunal's decision in this regard.

Valuation of Impugned Premises under the Second Proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III:
The court agreed with the tribunal's interpretation of the second proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, which mandates that the value of the property should be the cost of acquisition if it is lower than the cost of acquisition or construction, as increased by the cost of any improvements. Therefore, the court found no merit in the third question raised on this issue.

Applicability of Interest under Section 17B:
The court noted that the issue of exacting interest under Section 17B was not in dispute as per the Tribunal's order, and thus, it was not required to be addressed or answered.

Adjudication of Applicability of Exception (3) of Clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Act:
Regarding the contention that the tribunal failed to adjudicate on whether the appellant's case falls under exception (3) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Act, the court found that this question was not answered by the tribunal. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration specifically on this question. The court emphasized that if the tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, consequential relief of interest should also be considered. The court found no merit in the other questions raised and directed the tribunal to address question No. 2 as framed with consequential directions upon reconsideration.