High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.I.T. v. Sri Jitendra Kumar - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 73 of 1996  RD-AH 5111 (28 October 2005)
Income Tax Reference No.73 of 1996
Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut v.
Shri Jitendra Kumar, HUF (Specified)
59-B, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
(Delivered by R.K.Agrawal, J.)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ''D', Delhi has referred the following questions of law under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court:-
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for the purpose of Section 7(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in determining the assessee's interest in the partnership firm by adopting the fair market value of the assets in question, namely, the cinema building of the income capitalisation basis instead of land building method adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer ?
2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative and against the assessee then what ought to be the correct fair market value of the assets in question?"
The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1978-79.
Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-
The respondent assessee is a partner in M/s G.D. & Sons which owns Alpana Cinema in Delhi. The Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the market value of the cinema building by applying the land and building method on the basis of which the respondent assessee's interest in the above said firm was computed. In appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that in the case of other partners in the said firm, namely, Sri Nawal Kishore Paliwal and Sri Bimal Kishore Paliwal, the Tribunal in its order dated 7.12.1988, in Appeals No.218, 219 and 220, directed the application of income capitalisation method by applying an interest rate of 8%. He directed the Assessing Officer to recompute and revise the value of the share of the assessee in M/s G.D. & Sons accordingly. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed.
We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri Nitin Sharma appearing for the respondent assessee.
We find that this Court in Income Tax Reference No.27 of 1991, Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. B.K.Paliwal, decided on 21.10.2005, has answered the similar question being question no.1, in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and in view of the answer given on question no.1, has returned the question no.2 unanswered. The case of B.K.Paliwal has been followed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax and by the Tribunal which view has not been upheld by this Court.
Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the first question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of our answer to question no.1, question no.2 is returned answered. There shall be no order as to costs.
October 28, 2005
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.