COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. A NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court under s. 27(3) of the WT Act in WTC Nos. 16, 19, 29 and 31 of 1984, dt. 20/09/1982, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions to the High Court for its opinion :

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The WTO passed four separate orders for the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, on 29/12/1978, wherein it has accepted the valuation of a residential building of the assessee situated in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, at Rs. 2,39,946, Rs. 2,78,300, Rs. 2,78,300 and Rs. 3,00,000, respectively, but disallowed the liability to the Life Insurance Corporation to the extent of Rs. 11,000 and passed the assessment orders accordingly. The respondent-assessee had instituted four separate appeals before the AAC challenging the disallowance of the liability to the Life Insurance Corporation. The appeals were dismissed by the AAC vide his order dt. 18/08/1979. The CWT exercising powers under s. 25(2) of the WT Act and taking the view that the values of the property of the assessee as given by him and accepted by the WTO were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue because the values were underestimated, directed the WTO for fresh assessment. The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal which allowed the appeal holding that the order of the WTO has merged with the order of the AAC dt. 18/08/1979, and the subsequent report of the Valuation Officer could not constitute material for revising the assessments, set aside the order of the CIT.

(3.) Mr. S. R. Ashok, learned standing counsel for the applicant-Department, has taken us through the impugned orders passed by the CWT under s. 25(2) of the WT Act and by the Tribunal and urged that the Tribunal has wrongly observed in para 5 of its order that the CIT had relied on the subsequent report of the Valuation Officer, because, actually he had relied on the report which was already on record of the WTO at the time of passing the assessment order and, therefore, the second question framed is liable to be reframed because the words "did not constitute material" are unnecessary to decide the real question in controversy.