LAWS(J&K)-2000-10-19

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. GHULAM MOHI UD DIN MUTTO

Decided On October 03, 2000
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Appellant
V/S
GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN MUTTO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act") (erroneously numbered as Income-tax Reference), at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar ("the Tribunal"), has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : THE asses-see filed his return of net wealth on February 25, 1978, declaring his net wealth at Rs. 1,26,000. THE Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax made the assessment on March 30, 1982, and determined the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 2,64,810. This he did by enhancing the value of immovable properties and disallowing the claim of the assessee that a plot of land, measuring 4k 1m., owned by him, was agricultural land. THE assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Amritsar, against the above order. THE Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the assessment order following the decision of this court in P. C. Oswal v. S. P. Mehta, WTO [1983] 142 ITR 574, wherein it was held that the application of the Wealth-tax Act to the State of Jammu and Kashmir was ultra vires the Constitution of India, as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. THE appeal of the Revenue to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") against the above order was dismissed by the Tribunal in view of the decision of this court cited above. As the appeal against the decision of this court in P. C. Oswal's case [983] 142 ITR 574 was pending before the Supreme Court, the Revenue applied for a reference of the question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal to this court for opinion. Hence, this reference.

(3.) THE Supreme Court also repelled the argument on behalf of the assessee that the "capital value of the assets" on a true interpretation can only mean market value of assets minus any encumbrances charged upon the assets themselves and held (page 633) :