M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the revenue under section 27A of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957 challenging the order dated 12 -2 -1999 passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in WTA No. 84/Del./95 in respect of assessment year 1988 -89 raising the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in holding that the factory building did not belong to the assessee company, even though legal title vested in it. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer could not adopt the valuation made by the statutory valuation officer after the completion of the assessment, especially when section 16A(5) make it mandatory upon the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation once it is available on the records. Learned counsel for the assessee -respondent at the outset contends that in respect of the assessment year 1987 -88 ITR No. 159 of 1999 in respect of the same assessee filed by the revenue was decided by this Court on 2 -8 -2007. The first question raised therein is the same and it has been answered against the revenue.
(2.) IT is further pointed out by referring to para 3.1 of the order of the Tribunal that once in the previous year it has been held that the assessee -respondent has already transferred the factory building in favour of M/s R. Narain Dyeing and Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. then as a necessary corollary the same cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal has taken in view that valuation of the aforesaid building which has already been transferred by the assessee cannot be included as a taxable wealth in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by answering the second question because it would merely be an academic exercise. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the first question has to be answered against the revenue in terms of order dated 2 -8 -2007 passed in ITR No. 159 of 1999. We also accept the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that even the second question has been rendered academic. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.;