9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal was legally justified in remanding the case to the Wealth-tax Officer, for valuation of the property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards ? " The assessees, Chhagan Lal Gupta, Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Vidhya Sagar Gupta and Sunder Lal Gupta are the co-owners of the factory called " Jindal General Manufacturing Company " situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. All the co-owners filed their separate returns under the Wealth-tax Act for various years. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the total value of the suit property at Rs. 36,54,000 in each of the years under consideration on the basis of the report of the Departmental approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment had already been completed before April 1, 1989, the valuation of the property, as per Schedule III to the Act, could not have been made under Schedule III to the Act. The Schedule III to the Act came into force with effect from April 1, 1989, and, therefore, the Schedule III can be applied for the valuation purposes only with respect to the proceedings which were pending before the assessing authority on or after April 1, 1989, and not on the proceedings which have been completed before this date. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed by the Tribunal and the cases were remanded to the assessing authority and the assessees were permitted to ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing authority for adjudication and the valuation of the property has to be made in accordance with Schedule III of the Act. The amendment with regard to the procedure or of evidence are to be construed as retrospective and applies to all the pending matters on the dates when the amendment was made unless there is a specific indication that such was not the intention of the Legislature. The controversy in the present case stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886. It has been held by the apex court in this case that " rule 1BB partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
