Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sita Ram Jindal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3131-32 of 1993
Petitioner: Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Respondent: Sita Ram Jindal
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3131-32 of 1993
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 21, 2000
Head Note:
WEALTH TAX
Wealth Tax Rules, 1957
Rule 1D – Valuation of assets – Valuation of unquoted equity shares. Held, provisions of Rule 1D being directory, unquoted shares should be valued in terms of the said Rule and market value cannot be adopted after 1967.
(Para 2)
Wealth Tax Rules, 1957
Rule 1D – Valuation of assets – Valuation of unquoted equity shares. Held, provisions of Rule 1D being directory, unquoted shares should be valued in terms of the said Rule and market value cannot be adopted after 1967.
(Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Bharat Hari Singhania v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (207 I.T.R. 1) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Four questions were before the High Court in a reference under Section 127 of the Wealth Tax Act at the instance of the Revenue. They read thus :
“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that in valuing shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, the entire provisions for taxation appearing in the liability side of the balance sheet should be deducted from the value of the assets?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in approving the assessee’s method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer as per provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in adopting the market value of the unquoted equity shares after 1967, ignoring the provisions of Rule 1D?
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in adopting the market value of the unquoted shares of Jindal Aluminium Ltd. at Rs. 100/- per share as against the value determined by the Wealth Tax Officer?”
2. The High Court answered the first question in favour of the Revenue. It held that the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules was directory and, therefore, answered the second and third questions against the Revenue. In its view, the fourth question did not call for any specific answer.
3. This Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. Commission-er of Wealth Tax (207 I.T.R. 1) has taken a contrary view of the provisions of Rule 1D. Therefore, the second and third questions must be answered in favour of the Revenue. Once those questions are answered in favour of the Revenue, it follows, as a matter of course, that the fourth question must be answered, and it must be answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the second, third and fourth questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
4. The appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside.
1. Four questions were before the High Court in a reference under Section 127 of the Wealth Tax Act at the instance of the Revenue. They read thus :
“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that in valuing shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, the entire provisions for taxation appearing in the liability side of the balance sheet should be deducted from the value of the assets?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in approving the assessee’s method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer as per provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in adopting the market value of the unquoted equity shares after 1967, ignoring the provisions of Rule 1D?
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in adopting the market value of the unquoted shares of Jindal Aluminium Ltd. at Rs. 100/- per share as against the value determined by the Wealth Tax Officer?”
2. The High Court answered the first question in favour of the Revenue. It held that the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules was directory and, therefore, answered the second and third questions against the Revenue. In its view, the fourth question did not call for any specific answer.
3. This Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. Commission-er of Wealth Tax (207 I.T.R. 1) has taken a contrary view of the provisions of Rule 1D. Therefore, the second and third questions must be answered in favour of the Revenue. Once those questions are answered in favour of the Revenue, it follows, as a matter of course, that the fourth question must be answered, and it must be answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the second, third and fourth questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
4. The appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside.
