COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. JOHN L. CHACKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are wealth -tax appeals filed by the revenue against the orders of the Tribunal holding that departmental appeals filed before it were not maintainable because tax effect involved is below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT in their Instruction No. 2 of 2005, dated 24 -10 -2005, (2005) 198 CTR (St) 41. We have heard senior Counsel appearing for the revenue and Sri. P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the respondent -assessee. During hearing senior Counsel pointed out that issue involved is whether urban land with semi -constructed building is wealth assessable under the Wealth Tax Act. Even though tax effect is below the limit prescribed under para 2 of Instruction No. 2 of 2005, for department to maintain appeal before the Tribunal, senior Counsel referred to Clause (3) of the said instruction, which is as follows:

(2.) THE first question to be considered is which is the instruction to be followed for considering the maintainability of the appeals before the Tribunal and second question to be considered is even if provisions of the subsequent instruction are applied, whether appeals are still maintainable by virtue of Clause (11) of the said instruction.