WEALTH TAX OFFICER Vs. SURINDER SINGH BINDRA
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
O.P. Garg, Judicial Member -
(1.) 1 This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order, dated 14-7-1981, of the AAC.
(2.) 1974-75 is the assessment year concerned. 31-3-1974 is the corresponding valuation date. The assessee is an individual. The assessment was completed by the WTO as per order dated 13-3-1979 determining net wealth at Rs. 1,24,000. The said net wealth included the value of the assessee's one-third share in House No. 2/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The assessee had declared the value of said share at Rs. 67,466 on the strength of registered valuer's report. The WTO raised the estimate of value of said one-third share to Rs. 1 lakh. |The WTO worked out the said figure by adopting land and building method of valuation instead of yield capitalisation method, as adopted by the registered valuer.
The assessee challenged the said finding of the WTO by way of appeal before the AAC. The AAC directed the WTO to re-estimate the value of the said asset in the light of provisions of Rule IBB of the Wealth-tax Rules, as elucidated by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik v. WTO  6 Taxman 56 (Delhi-Trib.).
(3.) THE revenue is aggrieved from the said finding. Apart from the contention that the revenue had not finally accepted the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Biju Patnaik (supra) and that some questions of law arising out of the said judgment stood referred to the High Court, the revenue also contended that the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Biju Patnaik (supra) is non est, inasmuch as the said judgment was given by a Bench comprising three members and, according to the revenue, the President of the Tribunal under the Wealth-tax Act had no power to constitute a Bench of three members.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.