9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial undertaking at Rs. 45,132. Though there is no discussion in the order of assessment, it transpires that in making such computation the WTO had, in terms of r. 2 I of the WT Rules, considered as the starting point only assets excluding assets in the shape of factory building and land. 2. The assessee appealed to the AAC. In order to appreciate the contentions of the assessee in the appeal before us, we would set out the working of the AAC for the asst. yr. 1973-74 as under: . . Rs. Rs. "Gross assets as per balance sheet as on 31st March, 1973 . 41,72,737 Deduct: (1) Land as per Balance sheet 25,742 . (2) Building as per Balance sheet 3,35,524 . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of an industrial undertaking belonging to a firm or an association of persons of which the assessee is a partner, or, as the case may be, a member." The prescribed manner is the manner prescribed by r. 2-I of the WT Rules. The WTO and the AAC have taken the interpretation that the assets have to exclude land, building and rights in land and building of whatsoever nature whereas the learned counsel submitted that what can be excluded is only that type of land or building or rights in such land or building as would fall under other sub-sections of s. 5(1), such as, for example, the building under s. 5(1)(iv) to the stipulated extent of value or the land in s. 5(1)(iv)(a) etc. of course subject to the monetary limit in s. 5(1A). 5. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that for this purpose a particular asset i.e. land or building has been specifically mentioned to exclude not only the value of land or building but the value of the rights in the land or building. In the case of other assets the rights in such assets are not to be excluded but only the value of the assets themselves. This is one of the interpretations possible. Even if the interpretation canvassed by the Department is possible, we consider that the first being the interpretation more beneficial to the assessee, such interpretation should be given to s. 5(1)(xxxii) in accordance with the well recognised canons of interpretation of statutes). For authority for this proposition see the observations of the Supreme Court in CIT West Bengal I v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
