COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. GAYATRIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant (Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal) has filed this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed two questions of law, as extracted below, arising out of the order dated January 17, 1990, passed by the Tribunal in WTA Nos. 36 and 65/Ind of 1989 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 for our opinion ;

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee (non-applicant) constructed 40 shops on a leasehold land. For the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee declared the value of the shops at Rs. 3,48,089 on the basis of cost of construction which she subsequently revised on the basis of the approved valuer's report indicating Rs. 4,30,000, In the assessment, for the assessment year 1986-87, the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuer determined the value at Rs. 24,65,000. The assessee had also received deposits from the tenants amounting to Rs. 7,56,000 on which the Departmental Valuer calculated interest at 15 per cent. and treated the same as part of the rent. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). The appellate authority held that the value of land should not be added and that the interest should be calculated at 11 per cent. This order dissatisfied both the sides. The Department as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner Wealth-tax (Appeals) holding that the value of land should not be added while valuing the property on rent capitalisation method and the interest at 11 per cent. be applied on deposits instead of 15 per cent. as applied by the Valuation Officer. The Department felt aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal and thus filed the application under Section 27(1) of the Act. The application, as registered R. A. No. 58/Ind of 1990, was rejected on November 30, 1990. The Department has then filed this application.

(3.) AS we are making a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the first question of law, we do not desire to express any opinion, one way or the other, on the merits of the matter. However, in view of the conflict of opinion, we are satisfied that prima facie a case for direction is made out.