9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act should be allowed in the individual assessment of the assessee? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax cannot use his powers vested under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act for directing the Wealth-tax Officer to consider and adopting of a higher value of the assessee's share in respect of the property known as Kannammai Building?" The assessee is a partner in a firm called Palaniappa Brothers and she had 7 1/2 per cent. interest in the property known as "Kannammai Building". The assessee for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm. The Commissioner, however, rejected the contention urged by the assessee and passed the following order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. "The following issues that arise out of the assessment and the representations made to me call for clarification : (1) Whether the assessee is a co-owner of the property or whether the property belongs to the firm of Palaniappa Brothers of which the assessee is a partner? (2) Whether the value of her share of this property as on March 31, 1975, was only Rs. 2,65,383 or whether a higher value should be adopted?" In this view he set aside the assessment on the ground that it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to make fresh assessment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grant of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act to a partner is concerned, this court in the case of R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT [1995] 214 ITR 76 has held that the partner alone should have the benefit under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act to the extent of the respective share in the net wealth of the partnership firm. This court in another case, namely, CWT v. M. V. Annaporni Achi [1995] 214 ITR 592 has taken the view that the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act is available to a co-owner. Therefore, whether the assessee is regarded as a partner or a co-owner, in either event, on the basis of the above two decisions of this court, the assessee would be entitled to exemption under section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue, the return filed by the assessee for the subsequent year is a relevant material. But that material alone, without anything more, would not be sufficient to enable the Commissioner to form a reasonable belief that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer was erroneous. There must be some other materials like that there was no change in the nature of the property or the market value remained static which would enable the Commissioner to form the belief that the order was erroneous. In our opinion, there is not even a slender connection between the existing materials and the belief of the Commissioner in the instant case and that is why the Commissioner felt that there should be a clarification on the question of valuation. We hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
