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

1971 (8) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l No. 1075 of 1971 is by special leave. These appeals are brought by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal. In all these appeals we are dealing with the case of the same assessee, namely, Aluminium Corporation Ltd. The relevant assessment years are 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 and the material valuation dates are March 31,1957, March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959. So far as the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58 is concerned the matter had come up to this court on an earlier occasion. This court remanded the case to the High Court to decide the case afresh, if necessary after reframing the first question in the light of the principles enunciated by this court in the order of remand : see Commissioner of Wealth-t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere valued at Rs. 4,99,340, Rs. 1,08,40,840 and Rs. 1,89,23,449. This valuation was also without taking into account depreciation for the year ending March 31, 1956, in respect of buildings, plant and machinery. The increase in the value of these assets, after making allowance for all additions made to the assets, was due to the revaluation of the assets made by the company before March 31, 1956. The increase in value on account of revaluation was to the tune of Rs. 2,83,871, Rs. 72,31,204 and Rs. 98,67,481 in the case of land, buildings and machinery, respectively. The directors of the company in their annual report for the year ended March 31, 1956, noted that these assets had been revalued so as to indicate a true picture of their value .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Officer was of the view that the valuation of the assets having been made under section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, there was no need to analyse individually the value of particular assets. He also took the view that the value of the assets after revaluation was the correct one. He rejected the request of the company to make an allowance for the wear and tear of the assets even on the basis of the revised values for the period between the date of the revaluation of the assets and the wealth-tax valuation dates. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax disagreed with the Wealth-tax Officer and allowed the assessee's appeal holding that the value of the block assets should be taken to be their written down value as per the income .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ified ?" Now reverting back to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58, we have earlier noted the decision of the High Court. Aggrieved by the answer given by the High Court on the second question the Commissioner has brought Civil Appeal No. 1075 of 1971. The assessee has not appealed against the decision of the High Court on the first question. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions of the parties, we consider it necessary to observe that we are wholly unable to comprehend the attitude of the High Court while dealing with the case. The High Court quite clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the competence of this court to remand an appeal brought to this court under the provisions of the Wea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that the evidence afforded by the balance-sheet cannot be considered as primary evidence or prima facie evidence of the value, of the assets of business. To say the least, the learned Chief Justice indulged in an unnecessary mental exercise forgetting the fact that the law as interperted by this court is binding on all courts and Tribunals. Turning to the facts of the assessee's case, the revaluation of the assets was made in 1956. That revaluation in the absence of any evidence to show that it was incorrect, undoubtedly afforded a sound basis for valuing the assessee's assets. But then, when the value of those assets had to be determined on the valuation dates concerned in these cases, the Wealth-tax Officer should have deducted fr .....

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