P L STELLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE references come before us for answer to the following four questions:-

(2.) BARE reading of these questions, especially question Nos. 1 to 3 would show that in essence and for all purposes, the questions are pure and simple questions of fact dealing with a situation wherein the WTO, acting under S. 16A of the WT Act, 1957, decided to ascertain the valuation of the hotel building and in pursuance thereof acting under the powers of the above section, called for the valuation report and, on a consideration of the material before him, determined the enhanced value of the hotel building in question. In regard to this situation which is consistently considered by the three authorities, question No. 1 urges upon us to ascertain if the reference was proper and consequently also to consider as to whether the enhancement in the value of the hotel building on the basis of the valuation report could be sustained. Question No. 2 is also displaying similar situation, though couched in different words and expressions, asking us to ascertain whether WTO could be justified in adopting the value determined by the valuation officer and to act upon it.

(3.) FOR question No. 4 with regard to the applicability of the Circular dt. 28th Sept., 1957 complete answer is provided in the judgment of the Tribunal is second appeal in para 3 thereof to the effect that the decision of the Supreme Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers vs. WTO (1984) 39 CTR (SC) 47 : (1984) 145 ITR 485 (SC) rules the situation and not the circular relied upon. In short, what is placed for consideration before the two fact-finding authorities and available to us through their consistent conclusions would be as follows: The WTO proceeded to act under S. 16A of the WT Act. It was urged before him that this step was taken by the officer without application of mind and for no reasons whatsoever as there had been no remark in regard thereto in the order sheet of the officer. The first appellate authority has considered the position and has recorded that in the letter dt. 3rd Aug., 1978 to the valuation officer, the required reason and satisfaction is available showing the difference between the fair market value returned by the assessee and as estimated by the WTO exceeding the limits prescribed in r. 3 under the Act. It has been found as a factual conclusion that the WTO exercised discretion and had not acted mechanically in referring the matter to the valuation officer.