Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Ganga Pershad Kedia
1989 Latest Caselaw 602 Del

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.

1. In this petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, the petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that non-adherence to the provisions of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, did not justify the conclusion that the order of assessment was erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?"

2. The Wealth-tax Officer had taken 1/3rd share of the respondent in the property of Rs. 1,06,205 as against Rs. 61,715 which was returned by the assessed. It appears that this valuation was accepted by the assessed. The total value of the property was taken by the Wealth-tax Officer at the value of Rs. 3,18,615. The assessment order was accepted but the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed an order under section 25(2) revising the order. He was of the opinion that section 16A was applicable and that the Wealth-tax Officer should have referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. The Commissioner of the Wealth-tax did not specifically deal with the contention that rule 1BB, of the Wealth-tax Rules was applicable.

3. The assessed filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal followed its order for the earlier years wherein years wherein it had held that rule 1BB was applicable and the Wealth-tax Officer had in fact applied the said rule and the valuation was correctly arrived at.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition under section 27(1) but the same was rejected by the Tribunal.

5. In our opinion, the real question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether rule 1BB was applicable or not. If rule 1BB is applicable, then it is immaterial as to what is the value that is arrived at by the Valuation Cell. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding that rule 1BB is applicable and the petitioner is not seeking a question with regard to that. The only question which the petitioner is seeking is with regard to the non-adherence to the provisions of section 16A and, in our opinion, there being no dispute as to the applicability of rule 1BB, this question is purely academic. We, therefore, conclude that no question of law arises and the petition is dismissed.