COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. PRATAP BHOGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question of law referred to us in this case at the instance of the Revenue is:

(2.) THE assessee, inter alia, held shares of M/s Batliboi and Co. (P) Ltd. (for short 'the company'). The shares were not quoted at any stock exchange and were required to be valued in accordance with the provisions of rule ID of the WT. Rules., 1957. For the purpose of valuing the shares for the involved asst. year 1970 71, the pertinent balance sheets of the company is that as on 31st March, 1969.

(3.) SHRI Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue strongly relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Ashok Kumar Oswal (Minor) vs. CWT (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 216 : (1984) 148 ITR 620 (P&H) and the Karnataka High Court decision in CWT vs. N. Krishnan (1986) 50 CTR (Kar) 75 : (1986) 162 ITR 309 for the proposition that the excess of provision for taxation over the net tax payable by the assessee is to be excluded from the liabilities as distinct from the excess over the tax payable with reference to the profits as such. Fairly stating that the Gujarat High Court has taken a contrary view in its decision in CWT vs. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46 (Guj) which was followed by the said Court in CWT vs. Arvindbhai Chinubhai (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1982) 133 ITR 800 (Guj), Shri Jetley referred to a Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177 : (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) for the proposition that the expression "tax payable" meant the actual amount of tax payable, i.e., the amount payable on the basis of the book profits as reduced by the advance tax and self assessment tax already paid and tax deducted at source.