COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
2001 P T D 3394
[249 I T R 414]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and
Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Versus
HARI SHANKAR & BROS.
Civil Appeals Nos.4340 to 4346 of 1994, decided on 07/12/2000.
(Appeals by special leave from the orders, dated April 23, 1985 of the Delhi High Court in W.T.C. NoS.24 to 30 of 1985).
Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Wealth tax‑‑‑Valuation‑‑‑Land‑‑‑Potential value ‑‑‑Whether to be taken into account‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss.7 & 27.
Where the Appellate Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court to hold that the potential value of the land comprised in the property to be valued' could be added in assessing its value: Held, that the question whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the market value of the property was not as assessed by the Wealth Tax Officer on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer was a question of law that arose from the appellate order of the Tribunal and had to be referred to the High Court.
CIT v..Smt. Ashima Sinha (1979) 116 ITR 26 (Cal.) ref.
B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Kamalendra Misra, R.N. Verma, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Manjeet Chawla, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER.
The Revenue sought for reference of the following question:
"Whether, on the` facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the market value of the assessee's right in the property at Hailey Road, New Delhi, was not Rs.8,00,000 as assessed by the Wealth Tax Officer on the basis of the report from the Valuation Officer?"
The High Court declined to call for the reference.
From the order of the Tribunal it appears that it had relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Smt. Ashima Sinha (1976) 116 ITR 26, to hold that the potential value of the land could not be added in assessing its value. Clearly, a question of law arises which requires the consideration of the High Court.
It will be open to the assessee to contend, as has been done before us, that the valuation should be arrived at by employing the provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, and the High Court shall take this contention into account when answering the question on its merits.
The appeals are allowed. The orders under appeal are set aside. The Tribunal shall refer to the High Court the question quoted above, after drawing up a statement of case. No order as to costs.
M.B.A./1041/FCAppeals allowed.