9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax made under section 25(2) of the Act, is sustainable in law and from the material on record? (3) Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there was no factual information to show that the value of the property in question was much more than that returned by the assessee or at any rate estimated by the Wealth-tax Officer is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record ? (4) Whether, on the basis of the correct valuation method, the value of property in question was at all property returned by the assessee at Rs. 1,48,800 in her returns of wealth of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 and at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee proposing revision of the assessment orders. According to the Commissioner, even though the approved valuer had shown the value of the property in question on the land and building method of over Rs. 4,05,600, the assessee had returned a much lower value for the property for all the years and even though the Wealth-tax Officer had adopted the value of the property higher than the returned value and did not accept the value determined by the approved valuer, he did not make a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Act. The Commissioner, therefore, after hearing the assessee, set aside the assessment orders and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to reframe the assessments adopting the correct valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted the returned figure; (iv) The Commissioner's view that it was obligatory on the part of the Wealth-tax Officer whenever he does not accept the figure of valuation returned, to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer, does not seem to be correct in face of the expression "may" used in section 16A(1)(a) of the Act; (v) The direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax cannot remove the prejudicial aspect of the case and therefore possibility of the Departmental valuer adopting lower valuation cannot be ruled out. The Judicial Member in his separate order gave his findings to the following effect : (i) The case clearly fell under section 16A(1)(b)(i) of the Act, because the Wealth-tax Officer enhanced the returned value b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the order of the learned Accountant Member on all the material points on which the findings are given by him he has clearly differed from the findings of the Accountant Member. We are therefore surprised to find that the learned Judicial Member has, in his subsequent order, expressed that he had concurred with the order proposed by his learned brother. We fail to understand as to how the Tribunal has managed to achieve the same result with two sets of opposite findings of its two members. Perhaps, the Members have overlooked the fact that there is a clear statutory provision which enjoined a duty upon them to give findings on each point and if they differ on any finding on a point, they have to follow the course prescribed by law. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellate Tribunal for hearing on such point or points by one or more of other members of the Appellate Tribunal and such points on which the members have differed, are to be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members of the Appellate Tribunal, who have heard the case, including those who have first heard it. It is, therefore, clear that the process of rendering a decision by the Tribunal is not complete where the opinions of two members are equally divided on any point and it is only after the procedure provided by sub-section (4) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, is followed, that a decision of the Tribunal can come into existence. Differing opinions of the members who are equally divided do not individuall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrive at a unanimous judgment". In the present case, however, there is a clear provision in law which chalks out the procedure that the members have to adopt when they differ on any point, which falls for the consideration of the Tribunal. In any event, since we do not have any decision of the Tribunal properly so-called, and since it was incumbent upon the Members to state the points of difference after ascertaining as to what they had actually decided in their respective orders, and follow the procedure prescribed by sub-section (4) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, read with section 24(11) of the Wealth-tax Act, we would refrain from answering any of the questions which have been referred to us. The reference is, therefore, return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
