Delhi High Court
Cwt vs Vandana A. Siraney on 31 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 130 TAXMAN 578 Delhi
ORDER
By this application under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the revenue seeks a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for, short the 'Tribunal') to state the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that value of shares from Gedore Tools (P) Ltd. owned by the assessed should be determined by yield method and not by rule 1D which was mandatory on the Wealth Tax Officer ?"
2. Since the issue sought to be raised is purely legal and no longer res integra we deem it appropriate to dispense with calling for the statement of the case from the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits, by treating it as a regular reference, The office shall assign a new wealth-tax reference number to the case.
2. Since the issue sought to be raised is purely legal and no longer res integra we deem it appropriate to dispense with calling for the statement of the case from the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits, by treating it as a regular reference, The office shall assign a new wealth-tax reference number to the case.
3. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue. No one appears for the assessed.
3. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue. No one appears for the assessed.
4. As it is apparent from the format of the question, the short issue for consideration is as to how the unquoted equity shares of a company, other than an investment company or a managing agency company are to be valued. The issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT(1994) 207 ITR 1, wherein their Lordships held as follows :
4. As it is apparent from the format of the question, the short issue for consideration is as to how the unquoted equity shares of a company, other than an investment company or a managing agency company are to be valued. The issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT(1994) 207 ITR 1, wherein their Lordships held as follows :
"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."
5. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.
5. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.
WTC and the reference stand disposed of.
There will no orders as to costs.
