1984 (9) TMI 72 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether there was a mistake apparent in the original order of the Tribunal.
2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai's case should have been considered in the valuation of assets for wealth-tax purposes.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Tribunal received five miscellaneous applications from the assessee pointing out an apparent mistake in the original order. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider certain decisions, including that of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai's case. The Tribunal, through Judicial Member Y.R. Meena, held that there was no mistake apparent on record as the decision of the Supreme Court was not directly on the issue before them. The main issue in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai's case was regarding reopening of assessment, whereas the current case involved the valuation of assets without reopening the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications, stating that there was no apparent mistake in their order.

Issue 2:
Accountant Member K. T. Thakore disagreed with the conclusion of Judicial Member Y.R. Meena and argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai's case was directly relevant to the valuation of assets for wealth-tax purposes. Thakore highlighted that the Supreme Court's decision provided guidance on evaluating compensation received for acquired lands. Thakore suggested that the matter should be remitted to the WTO to estimate the value of compensation based on the Supreme Court's principles. Thakore emphasized that the failure to consider the Supreme Court decision constituted a mistake apparent from the record, warranting rectification of the original order. The miscellaneous application was treated as allowed, and the matter was referred to a Third Member for resolution.

Third Member Order:
Vice President V. Balasubramanian, as the Third Member, reviewed the case and concurred with Accountant Member Thakore's view. Balasubramanian noted that the Tribunal had failed to follow the Supreme Court's decision in valuing the assets. The Supreme Court's ruling provided clear guidelines on asset valuation, which should have been applied by the Tribunal. Balasubramanian concluded that there was a mistake apparent from the record, and the original order needed rectification to align with the Supreme Court's decision. The matter was to be sent back to the original Bench for disposal in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court's ruling.