Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 1005

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r of the Tribunal dated 25.02.1991, in W.T.A.No.1432/Hyd/1989 for the assessment year 1982-1983, under Section 27 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'). 01. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of the Wealth Tax (Appeals) in so far as fixing the value of the beneficial interest in the corpus at 50% of the value fixed by the valuer on the alleged grounds of uncertainties, hazards and risks of litigation, etc.,? 02. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the alleged uncertainities, hazards, risks of litigation and burden of tax liability, etc., pleaded by the assessee constituted factors for reduction of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i assisted by Sri.S.Ravindra Chenji, appearing for the assessee. 04. Learned Senior Counsel for the Department has drawn the attention of this Court to the order of the Tribunal in W.T.A.Nos.620 to 622/ Hyd/88 and W.T.A.Nos.672 and 753/Hyd/88 for the assessment years 80-81 to 81-82 (reported in 35 ITD page 402). He would submit that there is no basis for the Tribunal to give 50% reduction in valuation, in that view of the matter, it is submitted that inasmuch as under Section 16-A (5) of the Act, the valuation as determined by the Valuation Officer is binding on the Wealth Tax Officer and in the absence of cogent reasons for differing with the valuation as determined by the Wealth Tax Officer, giving of 50% discount in the valuation is tot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . He further submits that in the absence of challenge to the earlier Order of the Tribunal dated 12.06.1990 whereunder the valuation of the asset has been arrived at a particular figure, it is not open to come to a different conclusion without there being a specific challenge to the finding recorded by the Tribunal. He would further submit that these questions need not be answered on account of the fact that they are pure questions of fact. 07. Having considered rival submissions, we desired to ascertain from the learned counsel for the Department whether any proceedings were initiated, questioning the Order dated 12.06.1990 for the assessment years 1980-81, 81-82, the learned Senior Counsel for the Department was not able to confirm, even .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not be right. But we are unable to say that no debatable question of law at all arises for the ostensible reason that a question of valuation is generally considered to be a factual question". As a matter of fact the Court had referred to its earlier order. 09. The learned counsel for the Assessee has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgments reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (2001) 256 ITR 357 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gnan Ganga Science Institution (1999) 238 ITR 473. 10. The Tribunal in its order dated 12.06.1990 had in fact approved the valuation which was determined by the Appellate Commissioner, who had the benefit of going through the entire record placed before him. It is well settle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in issue are considered in totality. 14. It is well settled by catena of judgments, that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act and Section 256 of the Income Tax Act has to accept the finding as recorded by the Tribunal as correct unless a specific question as to the perversity of such finding of fact has been raised in the given case. 15. Question Nos.1 and 2, relating to valuation of the asset in issue, in the present case are pure questions of fact. In view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that the two questions are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. 16. So far as 3rd que .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates