1985 (1) TMI 122 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of property under Wealth Tax Rules
2. Validity of assessment order and refund of wealth tax paid

Issue 1: Valuation of property under Wealth Tax Rules
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-B involved a common issue regarding the valuation of a house property owned by the assessee by the WTO. The WTO valued the property using the rent yield method, resulting in a specific value for both assessment years. The AAC directed the WTO to value the property in accordance with rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules. The AAC further stated that if the value declared by the assessee exceeded the value determined under rule 1BB, the declared value should be accepted. The revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal. After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's order based on a previous decision by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, thereby affirming the AAC's direction regarding the valuation of the property.

Issue 2: Validity of assessment order and refund of wealth tax paid
In another appeal before the Tribunal, the issue revolved around the validity of the assessment order for the assessment year 1976-77 and the refund of wealth tax paid by the assessee. The assessee had initially filed a return of wealth, followed by a revised return. The WTO completed the assessment based on the original return, which the assessee contested, claiming a refund of self-assessment tax deposited. The AAC partially accepted the assessee's claim, setting aside the assessment order and directing the WTO to pass a fresh order considering the revised return. The assessee further appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the assessment based on the original return was invalid due to the subsequent revised return. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, canceling the assessment made on the original return and emphasizing the importance of considering the revised return. However, the Tribunal refrained from giving specific directions on the revised return, stating that it was the revenue's responsibility to act on it. The Tribunal also deemed it premature to address the claim for a refund of self-assessment tax until the fate of the revised return was determined. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, modifying the AAC's directions in light of the assessment's invalidity and the pending decision on the revised return.