VIJAY KUMAR MUNJAL Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1994-11-3
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 23,1994

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J. Kathuria, Accountant Member - (1.) THESE cross appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the revenue - pertain to assessment year 1983-84.
(2.) We shall first take up the assessee's appeal (WTA No. 207/Chd. /1988). The first ground is against the direction of the learned CWT (Appeals) to adopt the value of equity shares of M/s Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd., Ludhiana at the rate of Rs. 253 each as against Rs. 30.45 per share valued by the assessee. In fact, this ground is common with ground Nos. 1 and 2 in the revenue's appeal. Brief facts of the case are these. The assessee is an individual whose valuation date relevant to assessment year 1983-84 was 31-3-1983. The assessee had certain shares of M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. which were not quoted at the Stock Exchange. The accounting period of M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. ended on 30th June. Between 1-7-1982 and 31-3-1983, M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. issued certain bonus shares. As on 31-3-1983, the assessee held 1138 equity shares of M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. which included bonus shares also. The assessee returned the value of these shares at the rate of Rs. 30.45 per share. The Assessing Officer, however, worked out the value of these shares at Rs. 326.19 per share.
(3.) ONE of the reasons for the difference in the valuation of the aforesaid shares shown by the assessee and adopted by the Assessing Officer was that the assessee wanted that advance tax already paid should be excluded from the total assets. The Assessing Officer following the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Oswal (Minor) v. CWT[1984] 148 ITR 620 decided the issue against the assessee. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT[1994] 207 ITR 1 has since impliedly approved the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Oswal (supra) and hence to that extent, the order of the Assessing Officer is correct. Moreover, this controversy has not been raised before us by the learned counsel for the assessee either.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.