9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had purchased the following properties for consideration as mentioned against each of them from H.H. Shri Gaj Singh :--- Jawahar Khana Rs. 48,000 Saloon House Rs.1,57,000 Lake House, Mt. Abu Rs. 46,000 Land near Stadium Jodhpur Rs. 77,000 Land to the East & West of Circuit House Rs. 80,000 3. The assessee also constructed a cinema house known as 'Darpan Cinema' on the land near Stadium at a cost of Rs. 50.67 lakhs, which started functioning from June 1985. The sale consideration for the properties p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, held that the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1988 was effective from 1-4-1989 and hence the assessee could not claim any exemption for the assessment years under consideration. The learned CWT(A) also decided on the valuation of the properties involved, and after his combined order dated 28-2-1991 for all the five years, the comparative position of valuation in respect of each property stood as follows :-- (1) JAWAHARKHAN: --------------------------------------------------------- Asst. Value Value as per Value as Year Returned Assessing Officer per CWT(A) Rs. Rs. Rs. --------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 4,95,000 4,95,000 1988-89 4,13,000 5,50,000 5,50,000 (4) LAND NEAR STADIUM (4,500 SQ. MTS.) : -------------------------------------------------------------------- Asst Value Returned Value as per A.O. Value as per CWT(A) year --------------- ----------------- ------------------- Land Cinema Land Cinema Land Cinema Constn. Constn. Constn. Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; 1,17,80,200 ] Set aside 1987-88 2,94,505 1,47,25,250 ] 1988-89 2,94,505 1,76,70,300 ] ------------------------------------------------------------- 8. As the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the learned CWT(A) on the ground that he denied retrospective operation of the amendment made by Finance Act, 1988, as also on the ground that he sustained the enhancement in the values of certain properties, it gave rise to appeals before us which are numbered as WTA Nos. 138 to 142/JP/91 for the five years under consideration. Similarly, as the learned CWT(A) had considerably reduced the valuation of Jawaharkhan Property, the department came up in appeals before us only on that ground for all the five years which are numbered as WTA Nos. 172 to 176/JP/91. Since the learned CWT(A) had set aside the issue relating to the valuation of two properties for fresh consideration, the Assessing Officer re-assessed the same and was confirmed by the learned CWT(A). The assessee, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contentions of Shri Pandey. We are not dealing with a procedural provision which can have retrospective operation. Whether a particular asset attracts wealth-tax or not is a substantive provision. It cannot be disputed that before the amendment, stock-in-trade was not out of the purview of wealth-tax. It is a different matter that it may have caused hardship to the assessee. No sooner the Legislature realised that the provision is causing unintended hardship, it removed it by the amendment by specifically providing that the hardship will no longer remain from 1-4-1989. 12. The distinction between substantive law and procedural law has been brought out very clearly in the sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary at Page 1203 as follows :--- "As a general rule laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities among and for persons, natural or otherwise, are 'substantive laws' in character, while those which merely prescribe the manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised and enforced in a court are 'Procedural Laws'". 13. Whether a particular asset is to be charged with wealth-tax or not, is a part of the process which defines the rights and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th effect from 1-4-1989, reference to section 7(3) of the W.T. Act in section 40(4) of the Finance Act has become redundant. The only effect of keeping this redundancy in section 40 of the Finance Act is that Schedule-III would be applicable in the case of the Companies also. Section 7 has been held to be a machinery section and Schedule-III referred to therein is a procedural provision. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886 that procedural law applies to all pending proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case cited supra, quoted the following words with approval of Lord Justice Mellish in Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger [1876] 3 Ch. D 62 (CA) : "No suitor has any vested interest in the Course of procedure, nor any right to complain, if during the litigation the procedure is changed, provided, of course, that no injustice is done." 19. In the instant case, the proceedings not having reached finality as yet, and sub-section (4) of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 having been rendered redundant, we remand back the matter to the learned CWT(A) with a direction that the impugned properties be valued as per Sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
