9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the asset side and had also taken into consideration the provision for taxation as a liability. In sum, the revised valuation had been on the basis of the principle explained by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v. Arvindbhai Chinubhai [1982] 133 ITR 800, wherein the earlier decision in the case of CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46 had been followed. The ITO did not accept that method of valuation while allowing the provision for taxation, and deducted the advance tax paid in fixing the liability. On that basis, the value of the shares was fixed at Rs. 658 per share. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had filed appeals which were disposed of by the AAC by his consolidated order dated 9-2-1984 whereby he accepted the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trivedi cannot be accepted at all. 4. It had not been the stand of the assessee (either before the ITO or the AAC) that the shares should be valued on yield basis. This point was taken up for the first time before us. It was stated that the assessee could take up this point in the appeal in view of rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as there was no need to file cross-objections in view of the total success before the AAC. In support of his submission, Shri Trivedi cited the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the cases of D. M. Neterwalla v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 880, CIT v. Gilbert Barker Mfg. Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529 and J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616 and the decision of the Madras High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than what it would be as per the method and manner directed by the AAC. In other words, it is not certain whether the valuation of the shares on yield basis would be the same as the valuation under rule 1BB of the Rules made on the basis of the rule enunciated in the case of Ashok K. Parikh. It cannot, therefore, be said that by taking up this point, the assessee is supporting the order appealed from to press rule 27 into service. 7. Turning to the rulings cited, they are to the effect that in the Tribunal's discretion a party to an appeal may be allowed to raise a new point or contention provided two conditions are satisfied. One is that no new facts are required to be brought on record for disposing of such new point and the other is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the WTO does not contain any particulars in this regard and that the WTO would not be in a position to value the shares on yield basis as the record stands. His point was that the WTO cannot make a proper valuation of the shares without instituting enquiry in this behalf. Therefore, the position is that in this case valuation of shares cannot be made on yield basis for lack of sufficient data. Furthermore, since the assessee himself wanted the method of valuation under rule 1D, there is no good reason now to adopt altogether a different method. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the contention on behalf of the assessee raised for the first time should be rejected. 8. It was submitted that the Special Bench of the Tribunal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
