COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS A.A. PATEL
2004 P T D 2123
[254 I T R 487]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: B.N. Kirpal and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Versus
A.A. PATEL through Legal Representative
Civil Appeals Nos. 4620 to 4629 of 1994, decided on /01/.
th
August, 2001. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated October 3, 1989, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.C.C. Nos. 131 to 134, 135 and 146 to 150 of 1988. The judgment of the High Court in M.C.C. No. 135 of 1988 (which was to govern M.C.C. Nos, 131 to 134 and 146 to 150 of 1988 also) is reported as CWT v. A.A. Patel (1990; .181 ITR 543 (MP).
Wealth tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Wealth tax‑‑‑‑Valuation of assets‑‑Valuation Officer's Report ‑‑‑Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing Wealth Tax Officer to refer matter to Valuation Officer and adopt Valuation Officer's Report‑‑‑Questions whether such reference would be valid, whether report of Valuation Officer is not binding on Wealth tax Officer and whether Wealth Tax Officer bound to adopt Valuation Officer's Report‑‑‑Are questions of law‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss. 16‑A & 27‑‑‑[CWT v. A.A. Patel (1990) 181 ITR 543 reversed].
The questions (i) whether a reference made to the Valuation Officer in compliance with the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be a reference under section 16‑A of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, (ii) whether the report made by the Valuation Officer obtained on the basis of the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not binding on the Wealth Tax Officer and (iii) whether the Wealth Tax Officer is bound to accept the valuation in the Valuation Officer's Report, are question of law.
Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Lakhsmi Iyengar, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Sui, Advocate for Appellant.
Sushil Kumar Jain and Pradeep Agarwal, Advocates for Respondents.
ORDER
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, questions of law do arise. We, therefore, allow the appeals and direct the Tribunal to state the, case and refer the following three questions to the High Court for its decision (see (1990) 181 ITR 543, 545):
"(1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that a reference made to the Valuation Officer in compliance with the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be a reference under section 16‑A of the Wealth Tax, Act, 1957?
(2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the report from the Valuation Officer, although obtained on the basis of a reference made as a result of 'the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's directions, is not binding on the Wealth‑tax Officer under section 16‑A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act?
(3)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income ‑tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the Commissioner was not correct in concluding that the Wealth Tax Officer was duty bound to accept the Valuation Officer's Report so far as the valuation of assets was concerned and by not doing so, the assessments made by the Wealth Tax Officer, be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue?"
M.B.A./1096/FCAppeal allowed.