COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. VANDANA A SIFANEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under S. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, the Revenue seeks a direction, to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal') to state the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this Court:

(2.) SINCE the issue sought to be raised is purely legal and no longer res integra, we deem it appropriate to dispense with calling for the statement of the case from the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits, by treating it as a regular reference. The office shall assign a new wealth-tax reference number to the case.

(3.) AS it is apparent from the format of the question, the short issue for consideration is as to how the unquoted equity shares of a company, other than an investment company or a managing agency company are to be valued. The issue came up for consideration before the apex Court in Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT (1994) 118 CTR (SC) 125 : (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC), the wherein their Lordships held as follows: "Rule 1D has to be followed in valuing each and every case of unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company). It is not a matter of choice or option. The rule-making authority has prescribed only one method for valuing the unquoted equity shares. If this method were not to be followed, there is no other method prescribed by the rules. Where there is a rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. WTC and the reference stand disposed of. There will no orders as to costs.