9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of shares held by the assessee in Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 2. Reduction in the value of house property. Issue 1: Valuation of Shares Background: The primary issue revolves around the valuation of shares held by the assessee in Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., a public limited company whose shares are not quoted on the stock exchange. The valuation dates for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 were 31-3-1976 and 31-3-1977, respectively. The assessee valued the shares on the earning yield basis as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan [1972] 86 ITR 621. The WTO, however, valued the shares using the break-up method under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The AAC directed the valuation on yield basis but with some modifications, leading to disputes in the appeals and cross-objections. Arguments by the Revenue: The revenue argued that rule 1D is mandatory and binding on the assessing officer, who has no option to adopt any other method of valuation. The revenue contended that the AAC erred in applying the yield method instead of the rule 1D method. They supported their argument by citing section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which states that valuation is subject to rules made in this behalf. They argued that the language of section 7(1) and rule 1D is imperative, making the rules mandatory. They also cited several judgments, including those from the Kerala High Court and Allahabad High Court, which held rule 1D as mandatory. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee argued that rule 1D is directory, not mandatory, relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia's case and the Supreme Court's principles in Mahadeo Jalan's case. They contended that the only valid method for valuing unquoted equity shares of a going concern is the earning yield method. The assessee also argued that rule 1D would be violative of section 46 and ultra vires if held mandatory. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. It noted that section 7(1) opens with "subject to any rules made in this behalf," indicating that rules framed under this section would prevail over its main provisions. The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court judgments and principles of statutory interpretation, concluding that rule 1D must prevail over the statutory provisions. The Tribunal disagreed with the Bombay High Court's interpretation in Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia's case, favoring the judgments of the Kerala and Allahabad High Courts, which held rule 1D as mandatory. Conclusion on Issue 1: The Tribunal held that rule 1D is mandatory and binding on all. Consequently, the AAC's valuation on the earning yield basis was not considered, and the cross-objections by the assessee were rejected. Issue 2: Reduction in the Value of House Property Background: For the assessment year 1976-77, the AAC reduced the value of the house property from Rs. 32,000 to Rs. 26,563, which was initially determined by a registered valuer in 1974. The WTO had adopted a higher value considering the continuous rise in property prices. Arguments by the Revenue: The revenue argued that the AAC erred in reducing the value, ignoring the appreciation in property prices since the last valuation date. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee supported the AAC's order, which relied on the valuation accepted by the WTO for another co-owner of the property. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the AAC's reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477 was overruled. Given the continuous rise in property prices and the valuation date being 31-3-1976, the Tribunal found the WTO's valuation of Rs. 32,000 to be reasonable. Conclusion on Issue 2: The Tribunal reversed the AAC's order and restored the WTO's valuation of Rs. 32,000 for the house property. Final Judgment: The appeals by the revenue were allowed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.
|
