High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
CWT v. Sri Ram Saran Kejriwal - WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 198 of 1987  RD-AH 1362 (9 November 2004)
Wealth Tax Reference No.198 of 1987
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shri Ram Saran Kejriwal.
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J
Hon'ble P. Krishna, J
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law for opinion to this Court under section 27 (3) of the Wealth Tax Act 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) :-
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A (sic.) was correct in law in holding that the question of valuation was not referred to the proper values (sic.) and directing the W.T.O. to refer the valuation again (sic.) to the competent valuer, to determine the assessee's share in the firm and not to go by valuation made by the valuation officer who had valued the assets of the firm?"
The reference relates to the assessment years 1970-71, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1977-78 and 1978-79.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-
The respondent is a partner in the Firm M/s.New Cawnpore Flour Mills and M/s. Kejriwal Flour Mills, in which his share is 1/6th. The Wealth Tax Officer considered the value of the assess's interest in the above firms as shown by the assessee, to be on lower side. He found that the value of land and building and plant and machinery belonging to the Firms, as per balance sheet of the firms even after taking into account the appreciation returned, was very much on lower side than its fair market value. He made reference to the departmental Valuation Officer under section 16 A of the W.T. Act, 1957 to determine the fair market value of the land, building and plant and machinery owned by the above firms. After obtaining the relevant valuation reports, the Wealth Tax Officer included in the net wealth of the assessee, the value of interest in the Firms after including 1/6th share in the fair market value of the said land and building and plant and machinery in accordance with the valuation report. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (Appeals) set aside the issue with the directions that the same should be valued having regard to the value in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2 of the Wealth Tax Rules and in case a reference was to be made under section 16A, then the same should be made to the Valuation Officer specifically appointed for the valuation of share in the partnership Firms. The Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and had directed the Wealth Tax Officer to refer the valuation again to the competent valuer and then to determine the assessee's share in such valuation.
We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared for the assessee respondent. We find that the Tribunal has only remanded the matter to the Wealth Tax Officer and has not adjudicated upon any issue. Thus, the question of law referred to us for opinion does not arise and we accordingly return the question unanswered.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.