9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M.S. SHAH J.-This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee-Hindu undivided family on partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family of Poonjabhai Vanmalidas received properties, namely, Laxmi Talkies and L. N. Talkies and disclosed the value of the said property as per valuer's report. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the valuation as disclosed by the assessee and made certain adjustments. On examination of the case records, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax found that the value of the properties which were received on partial partition was Rs. 16,32,800 and Rs. 19,23,800 for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, respectively. In view of the appreciation of the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Revenue, the following four questions have been referred for our opinion: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not justified in exercising the power under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in so far as the assessment year 1976-77 in question is concerned? 2. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that when the Wealth-tax Officer had made enquiries on his own and had determined the fair market value of the properties in question the Commissioner could not exercise jurisdiction under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the instant case is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record? 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the assessee was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the exercise of powers by the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act was justified. Mr. Naik submitted that the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the same base for the assessment year 1976-77, but merely added the renovation expenses and after capitalising the same, determined the value of the properties in question. Still, however, the Tribunal has held that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1976-77 was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Mr. Naik has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort submitted by the assessee as the base value and thereafter adding the capitalisation of the renovation charges for the assessment year 1976-77. The Tribunal has given the following reasons for holding the Commissioner's order under section 25(2) of the Act to be illegal: "Now we come to the appeal relating to the assessment year 1976-77. The facts which we have set out earlier clearly show that unlike assessment year 1975-76, the Wealth-tax Officer had determined the fair market value of the two properties in question on his own by capitalising the renovation charges which were incurred by the assessee and by holding that the renovation expenses would go to increase the value of the properties in question. Thus for the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
