9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the yield method as against rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules ?" Briefly stated, the facts are that the Wealth-tax Officer was concerned with the valuation of the shares of Messrs. Doorvani Cables (P.) Ltd. which were held by the respondent. The Wealth-tax Officer valued the said shares by applying rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules. An appeal was filed against this order and, following the decision of this court in Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT [1986] 159 ITR 549, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directed that the said shares should be valued by applying the yield method. The Wealth-tax Officer filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of this court in Sharbati Devi's case [1986] 159 ITR 549, dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is that there being difference of opinion amongst the different High Courts the question of law which has been proposed should be ordered to be referred. According to Shri Pandey, the matter is now pending adjudication in the Supreme Court because special leave petitions against the decision of the Allahabad High Court have been admitted and a special leave petition against the decision of Sharbati' Devi's case [1986] 159 ITR 549 (Delhi) has been filed in the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Kerala .High Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 8712 and contended that, in that case also, the Kerala High Court had given a decision on a point for an earlier year and in respect of the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the interpretation of rule 1 D. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a number of decisions, that, in dealing with an application under section 256(2), the court is not required to go into the merits of the question proposed to be raised. All that the court should see is whether a question of law arises or not. The contention urged by Shri Pandey is, in our opinion, basically correct but if the answer to the question proposed is self-evident or it is academic, then the court will not direct a question to be referred. Shri Pandey submits that a question of law can be regarded as academic only if, on that point, there is a decision of the highest court of the land, namely, the Supreme Court. We are una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration. In that event, the Bench issuing a reference would be in position to observe that the case should be heard by a larger Bench, in which case, one will not be able to say that the answer to the proposed question is self-evident or academic. In the present case, we are not persuaded to hold that the earlier decision needs reconsideration. As we have already observed, the decision in Sharbati Devi's case [1986] 159 ITR 549 (Delhi) with regard to the interpretation of rule 1 D is referred to in only one decision, namely, that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the same has been followed. Though curiously enough the Andhra Pradesh High Court has not cited the decision, yet they stated that the Delhi High Court has taken the view w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
