PUSHPA GODHWANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order dated November 27, 2001, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi, in W. T. A. Nos. 71/Delhi of 1997 and 654/Delhi of 1996 pertaining to the assessment years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93 is under challenge in this appeal by the assessed under Section 27A of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the background facts are : In her return of wealth for the assessment year 1992 -93, the assessed declared the value of her share in immovable properties, bearing Nos. 2137 -2140 and 2152, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, at Rs. 2.50 lakhs. However, while completing the assessment for the relevant assessment year, the Wealth -tax Officer adopted the value of the properties at Rs. 44,08,992. Being aggrieved, the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth -tax (Appeals), (for short 'the CWT(A)'). Before the Commissioner of Wealth -tax (Appeals), it was argued on behalf of the assessed that a mere possession, unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of the property would not bring the said property within the ambit of Section 2(m) of the Act and, thereforee, the value of the said asset was not includible in her net wealth. In support of the proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (Late) v. CWT : [1986]162ITR888(SC) . Although the Commissioner of Wealth -tax (Appeals) noticed the said argument, but without expressing any view thereon, restored the matter of valuation of the said properties to the Assessing Officer, with the direction that he should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the Act.

(3.) THE Tribunal, while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth -tax (Appeals) declined to go into the question whether the said property was an 'asset' in the hands of the assessed includible in her net wealth, on the ground that in the grounds of appeal there was no specific challenge to the inclusion of the value of the property in the net wealth and further no permission was sought for admission of an additional ground in that behalf. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the assessed that the value of the subject property could not be included in her net wealth. Hence, the present appeal.