COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS T. R. JAYARAMAN
2001 P T D 2529
[248 I T R 781]
[Madras High Court (India)]
Before R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
versus
T.R.‑JAYARAMAN
Tax Cases Nos. 1056 to 1058 of 1993 (References Iyos.330 to 332 of 1993), decided on 09/11/1998.
Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Valuation of assets‑‑‑Valuation of unquoted equity shares‑‑‑Rule 1D is mandatory‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, R.1D.
Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, has to be followed in valuing each and every case of unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company). It is not a matter of choice or option. The rule‑making authority has prescribed only one method for valuing the unquoted equity shares. If this method were not to be followed, there is no other method prescribed by the rules. Where there is rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authority 'under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets.
Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) fol.
C: V. Rajan for the. Commissioner.
Nemo for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.‑‑‑The substantive question referred to use in this reference is as to whether rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, is mandatory or directory.
The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhenia v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 while upholding the validity of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules has held that (headnote): "Rule 1D has to be followed in valuing each and every case of unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company). It is not a matter of choice or option. The rule‑making authority has prescribed only one method for valuing the unquoted equity shares. If this method were not to be followed, there is no other method prescribed by the rules. Where there is a rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets"..
The questions referred to us, therefore, have necessarily to be and are answered in favour of the Revenue‑and against the assessee.
The assessee has not been served with notice in this reference. We have nevertheless proceeded to dispose of the reference having regard to the fact that the law on the question has been now declared authoritatively by the Supreme Court and the law so declared is binding on all persons and authorities in India including the assessee.
However, we reserve liberty to the respondent in this reference to apply to us for the purpose of making any submission which though material for the purpose of disposing of this reference had not been brought to our notice by the Revenue.
M.B.A/965/FCOrder accordingly.