9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt the following questions under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in modifying the direction given by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to the Wealth-tax Officer to reframe the assessment by directing the Wealth-tax Officer to apply rule 1BB when the Tribunal has held that the order was legal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peration the adjoining plots bearing C-12 and B-12 were sold for Rs. 2 lakhs each in December, 1974, and January 1975. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, therefore, found that the order of the assessment as made by the Wealth-tax Officer for each of the years was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, set aside the order for each of these years after hearing the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore all the authorities. It was held that, since the matter had already been remitted to the Wealth-tax Officer, the Wealth-tax Officer should apply rule 1BB for all the years in question. The contention of the Revenue that rule 1BB cannot be invoked does not now survive in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886, in which while cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, we hold that the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules should be applied to the assessee's case in respect of these years and the Wealth-tax Officer should reframe the assessment on that basis. Both the questions are, therefore, answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
