9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1979, but did not grant him exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee preferred an appeal and the first appellate court, vide annexure 2, dated October 21, 1980, accepted both the contentions of the assessee regarding non-applicability of rule 2B(2) and also with regard to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Department preferred a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein there was a difference of opinion between the two members and the point of difference was referred to the third member. The Tribunal, while upholding the order of the first appellate authority, rejected the second appeal filed by the Department, vide annexure dated September 29, 1987. The Department, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s arose in other cases and have Already been referred by this court, on an application under section 27(3) of the Act, directing the Tribunal to refer these questions to this court for its decision. In this connection, he has placed reliance on CWT v. Smt. Jatan Devi (D. B. Wealthtax Reference No. 88 of 1988), CWT v. V. K. Kasliwal (D. B. Wealth-tax Reference No. 86 of 1988) and CWT v. Vimal Kumar Surana (D. B. Wealthtax Reference Application No.131 of 1988), decided on July 6,1989-See [1990] 182 ITR 470. On the other hand, Mr. N. M. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that, in so far as the question with regard to the applicability of rule 2B(2) of the Rules is concerned, it stands decided by this court in CWT v. Moti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Manmohan Lal [1990] 186 ITR 603 (Raj) decided on October 26, 1989, wherein the reference application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act was dismissed and the High Court refused to call for a reference. The provisions of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules have been considered by this court in Moti Chand Daga's case [1988] 174 ITR 379 (Raj). In that case, this court was considering the question whether the market value of the closing stock could not be determined on the basis of the gross profit rate alone shown by the assessee. This court has held that where the only material available is the gross profit rate and there is no positive material to indicate the extent of deduction which has to be made therefrom for the purpose of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has held that the onus is on the Department. In other words, the questions which are sought to be raised by the Revenue in the instant case stand fully covered by the decision of this court in Moti Chand Daga's case [1988] 174 ITR 379. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, that the total tax effect will be around a sum of Rs.1,000 only, that the questions have already been considered and decided in Moti Chand Daga's case [1988] 174 ITR 379 (Raj) and further that these questions have already been referred to the Tribunal for making a reference, no useful purpose will be served in multiplying the references on the same questions of law. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in this application. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
